“Everyone’s perspective” except mine - I’m told by the OP that the machine does actually work, so I have godlike omniscience to decide whether it’s ethical or not. At least, that’s how I read it - I, the poster, am being asked the question, not I, some random inhabitant of the hypothetical world. Although even there, I’m told by the OP that we do know it’s worked somehow. So obviously it has erased someone. I don’t care if that one person is Josef Mengele, you understand? Killing is always wrong.
Some random inhabitant of this hypothetical world, would have no reason to believe that any particular person has been killed, or even “erased”. The machine speculated in the OP works perfectly, remember. It really does actually prevent the erased person from ever existing. That person hasn’t been killed any more than the child I made with Kim Kardashian has been.
I’m not even sure a “godlike omniscience” would be able to tell that a person was ever erased, because in this hypothetical world the machine never actually gets used. It cannot possibly ever be used, because using it would cause it to not be used in the first place. The OP only says you know it works because crime rates are down, which is in fact the same knowledge the random inhabitants of this hypothetical world have.
You might say that, but I wouldn’t. It’s effectiveness wouldn’t be due to it never being used; it would be due to having been used many times.
Did anything I wrote convince you that it’s not equivalent to using a condom? You didn’t comment.
I know that; I mentioned that in my post. It’s irrelevant to what I am discussing.
Such a device would never be used ethically by the state, and it is an instrument of warfare and mass destruction. The kind of hellish environment the world would be, makes North Korea pale in comparison. You worship at the altar of the state, and pray you do not incur its wrath. There is no God. (Same as usual, but such a machine would make that all-too clear, because no just and loving God would allow such a machine to unmake its creation)
All of humanity should rise as one and attempt to destroy the device and destroy all knowledge of the device’s construction, only then would humanity be restored to the Earth.
You’re discussing it on your own terms, not on humanity’s terms. You rely on a higher-dimensional meta-reality, in which the machine “is used” as opposed to a time-line reality, in which it is not. Humans don’t observe higher-level realities. We can’t observe the world in which Mitt Romney was elected President.
This is why your view seems inconsistent on whether the person “existed” or “never existed.” You said one thing, then the other, but this is just because you’re jumping from one kind of viewpoint (meta-level) to the other (human-observed timelines.)
Exactly so: we also would have no ability to perceive that the machine had ever been used. We can only observe time-lines, not the continuum of all time-lines.
(We can’t even perceive the “patch” or the “seam” in the time-line, where an external power makes a change in it. You can’t catch the intervention on a security camera, because to the camera…and to us…“it never happened.”)
Depends, I guess. Some might define “godlike omniscience” to include the ability to observe across timelines, but others might leave that power out of the definition.
(It would be interesting, on Judgement Day, to find ourselves made aware of all of the consequences of all of our possible actions, and judged on the basis of this vast envelope of all that we, as individuals, might have been and done.)
You are the one that knows “humanity’s terms” differs from mine?
I’m discussing the OP as it was written.
Yes, we can. If we have good evidence that such a reality existed and any effects from it were left over. The OP’s scenario involves knowing that people will be sentenced to having the machine used on them and a result that includes evidence that the machine has been used many, many times which is it’s success in resulting in what was intended.
I’m not interested in semantics. I’m interested in discussing the following questions and statements by Mosier and what’s wrong with it:
“I don’t think the world would be a worse place if there was never another psychopath born, do you? If you agree, then what precisely is the functional difference between that and the OP?”
*The daughter you never had because you spooged into a condom the night she would have been conceived will now never be able to invent faster-than-light travel. Do you want to ban condoms now? *
*You’re missing the point. The machine never has to be turned on. If it ever would be turned on, history is rewritten to create a situation in which the machine was never used. The machine just creates a world in which nobody ever becomes a monster. It doesn’t “kill” or “erase” people in any sense, because those very people never even existed. The machine just sits there, unused, while the worst crimes of humanity just stop happening. From literally anybody’s perspective, there’s no way to even tell if the machine even works. *
How? What is the current unemployment rate in the world where Mitt Romney was elected president?
How would there be evidence that the machine has been used many, many times? No one has any experience of pushing the button. There are no records of the machine being used.
One might suggest that there is some a priori indication of its use, in that the murder rate dropped to nil just about the time the machine was invented. But no one can point to any instance of the machine ever being used. No one has ever observed it happening. Those time-lines have been edited “not to have happened.”
The next sentence of mine makes it evident that neither question you just asked needs to be:
If we have good evidence that such a reality existed and any effects from it were left over.
I don’t have any evidence that any such world existed so I can’t answer either of your questions.
You go on to answer the question yourself:
One might suggest that there is some a priori indication of its use, in that the murder rate dropped to nil just about the time the machine was invented.
Yeah, one “might” suggest it, like I already have and it’s the premise given in the OP.
Irrelevant. The machine has been designed so no one can do that. Strong evidence that it has been used many times does exist and that is relevant.
The drop in the murder rate might have several hypothetical explanations, just as the (very real) drop in the murder rate in our world has several competing explanations.
This machine might be one of the explanations, but since we never see it in action, then we might have no reason to believe in it, There might be dozens or hundreds of other machines, all claiming to do the same thing, and which don’t cause any change in the observable universe either.
Of course we do. The premises of the OP are important to the discussion. One of the premises is that the science is sound- we know that the device works. The device is programmed to be used in a specific way. It’s used world-wide and it’s intended use comes to fruition: “violent crime rates drop off to 0, except in the cases where the criminal can’t be caught.” Using a reasonable definition of the word “know”, we know it works and has been used many times. More importantly, the OP is asking us to take the position that society accepts that it works into consideration for the scenario he proposes.
Actually the OP only says that the functioning of the machine is apparent to a hypothetical ‘outside-of-time’ observer. No-one in the real universe could possibly know that it works. Ordinary, common-sense skepticism would soon remove any certainly that the machine works, so that every time it is used is the first time.
Of course none of the other machines would work either, but we wouldn’t know that until we tried them; we could try all the machines one by one until we get to the only effective machine, then instantly forget that we had used it. At the same time we would forget that we had used all the other machines so we would be back at square one.
Actually, the OP says everything I said he did.
-
It’s irrelevant. The premise in the OP is that it does work.
-
Another premise of the OP is the following:
but with measurable statistics showing that ever since it was invented, violent crimes are way down to almost nothing, people know it is working.
-
There’s absolute certainty and reasonable certainty. Common sense skepticism would lead one to accept that the machine works.
-
The premise of the OP is that the machine works, so we’re all asked to accept that.
-
The machine in the OP is used many, many times and it effects the world tremendously. So, no, “every time” it’s used it’s not the first time, whether it appears to be or not. There is the “new world” and the “old worlds.” The old worlds did exist and what makes the new world new every time are the multiple uses of the machine.
The machines work. It’s a premise of the OP.
I have to admit, I’m fascinated by the implications of using the device this way more than the original question the OP posed.
First off, for the scheme to work on anything like an “ongoing” basis, you can’t use it on anybody older than the time since it was invented, so it’ll take at least 14 years to have an effect on anything beyond juvenile delinquence. (Using it to rewrite history any further than that is inevitably going to lead to a timeline in which the device wasn’t invented.)
This is unusually cynical of me, but I also wonder if it could really have the measurable effect on crime rates, if other people come into existence to “replace” the ones that didn’t exist. A lot of them are going to come from the same families and social backgrounds as the unexisted ones, and thus may turn to crime at a high rate. And if not, then we’re going to notice inexplicably low birthrates in particular sectors of society…
[QUOTE=eburacum45]
Actually the OP only says that the functioning of the machine is apparent to a hypothetical ‘outside-of-time’ observer.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Actually, the OP says everything I said he did.
[/quote]
I know what it says, but the OP includes a logical impossibility; no-one can check the effects of a machine that no-one can ever see in action, since it erases all evidence of its functionality. This machine, if it existed, could never be tested, so no-one (except the hypothetical extra-temporal observer mentioned earlier) would ever see it working.
Time travel paradoxes are much more complex than most people imagine. This erasure machine is far worse than the problem it claims to solve - if it were ever activated, it would not just eradicate one person, it would in fact erase an entire timeline, basically destroying an entire universe just to eradicate one person. If it were used repeatedly there would be countless stillborn universes littering the manifold, any of which might have been far better than the one that was created in its place.
Here is the Doctor trying to decide whether to eradicate the Daleks before they ever existed;
he decided that he could not, because he did not have the right to change the universe in such a radical way.
If you know what it says, why did you claim “the OP only says that the functioning of the machine is apparent to a hypothetical ‘outside-of-time’ observer”? The OP does not “only” say that regarding the knowledge of the workings of the machine.
I see no logical impossibility there, nonetheless, that’s incorrect. The machine’s sole purpose is that one type of evidence will change dramatically- crime statistics. Shall I continue to repeat this or would you like to just address it?
Are those countless stillborn universes* likely *to be far better, though? I think a universe in which the worst criminals cannot exist is likely to be a far better place than the “real” world.
Necessarily? You didn’t respond to my questions. I’ll repeat some for you:
*You really don’t see the difference is, do you? Do you mind telling me how I know what my daughter is going to invent before she is born?
In the scenario in post 47, Albert Abattoir Jr is already born. We reasonably know that when the machine is used on his father, Albert Abattoir Jr will also be erased along with all of his vaccines that help millions. Albert Abattoir Jr knows his father is sentenced to have the machine used on his father, and has to live with the agony of knowing that although it was his father that committed heinous crimes, he and his accomplishments will also receive the same sentence. Albert Jr’s six siblings also will be erased along with his fourteen nieces and nephews. This is the same as using a condom?*
Do you still find using the machine the same as using a condom? Do you find a universe where this machine is used far better where when isn’t used when the innocent will go through the agony of knowing they will be poofed into non-existence such as Albert Abattoir Jr, his six siblings and fourteen nieces and nephews?
The scenario in the OP is not one where the worst criminals cannot exist. Not sure where you’re getting that from.
True…and if it changes the entire cosmos, then you could have situations where we prevented a murder here…and caused total nuclear war on Mu Eridanus VI.
Still, that’s at the level of unknown and unknowable conjecture, whereas we do know that the use of the machine would prevent one murder, so we are assured that the revised time-line is to that degree better than the unrevised time-line.
The post directly above this one puts the argument better than I could have. You cannot know whether pushing the button will have an unforeseen disastrous consequence, but likewise you cannot know whether NOT pushing the button will have an unforeseen disastrous consequence. Disastrous unforeseen consequences are equally likely for pushing or not pushing the button.
The claim that is logically impossible is that the ‘science’ of the machine is sound. It is literally impossible to use science to test this machine, since the experiment is erased by the machine itself. As I said earlier, this machine could coexist with dozens of other non-functiioning machines that also fail to produce any observable effect on the universe, and no-one could tell the difference. Most likely social scientists would come up with a sociopsychological thesis that explains the drop in crime, just as the attempt to do in the real world to explain the real drop in crime.