Honestly I think a lot of this went over my head, and I don't see the question.
From the beginning it is we as humans who have defined the word transportation. The universe doesn't follow our definition but its own laws. I assume the transporter would follow or abuse these laws to work. as such there is no line for the universe to define a successful transportation. It is a line for us humans to define what we consider a successful transportation whether or not the transportation followed the laws of the universe. Losing an ear could be considered fine, losing fingernails could be considered failure. That is up to humans to define, not the universe.
Of course as earlier I said a lot of this was going over my head.
My words are useless if you are already discussing what the line should be as humans.
Or something else entirely about consciousness.
I would also like to state I did not understand the original problem.

Now here's the problem: there has to be a line somewhere between "transported" and "not transported". Because, while "degree of difference" might be a continuous measure, whether you survive or not is binary (surviving in a imperfect state still counts as surviving).
And it seems impossible, in principle, to ever know where that line is, as that line makes no measurable difference to objective reality. And it's also totally arbitrary in terms of physical laws; why would the universe decree that, say, X=12,371 means being transported with brain damage, and X=12,372 means you just die at the source? — Mijin

It makes a little sense to me now. Are you saying that living is the measure for successful transportation?
I also don't think I understand the line you mention. If X is referring to Atoms out of place at the destination. Nothing determines which atoms these are. If it is completely random then there cannot be a specific number as the atoms come from random places of the body.
This is quite an interesting question, and it really gets my blood pumping.
I think however that without any specific information on the transporters workings any answer we come to would be based entirely on the additional statements or conditions you make.

Not anymore so than the claim of which spawned it, I'd say. — Outlander

Cannot disagree with that.

It just seems a bit unsound from how I process it in my own head. Not bad. Just, in need of refinement. Perhaps we can do so together? :smile: — Outlander

I would agree with and to that.

So basically, people have different opinions when it comes to large existential concepts outside of the reasonable capacity of the average mind and no one person's opinion on such topics can be more right or wrong than the other, is what I gather you're suggesting. Is that right? — Outlander

Like you have said it is unrefined, but I would say something similar to that. The parts with capacity of the human mind is something beyond my original thoughts. I think it would be hard to find that line. The thing is that I have a basic understanding that is coming from my own thoughts, but putting that into words is harder than I thought.

Smells like nihilism to me, OP. — Outlander

Probably is, however I think it is important to state that these are my own thoughts and not that of others.

Like I mean, unless I'm wrong, OP would suggest being born into a time period and family where that individual ended up going through the Holocaust "has it's benefits"... and even beyond that, is "no different" than if that person was instead born into a rich family not affected by the war at all and only benefited from it. That's a bit of a "hard sell" to me, to put it lightly, but, I'll let OP answer that. If he would like. — Outlander

That is a mighty example you used, and a dangerous one. I am going to avoid the Holocaust example.
The basis of my argument is quite bad. Say if you were to die, anyone with normal values would consider it bad. However what about a person who committed suicide, they might consider it good. Now there is a difference in the values. Is it truly better to be dead or alive? Without answering that question we couldn't say dying early is better than dying late.
I don't think we can answer that question because we don't know what happens after you die. You could answer this question with religion.
It is important to note that this completely ignores the personal. If you were to value life, dying would be bad, but without those values... is there a truth?
Which brings me to a question, how do we know a value is correct? Is there a way? Or do we all just have to hold our own values through life unknowingly?

No, everything is not subjective and life is not absolutely equal. There IS an objective reality. If everything was subjective, how would we begin to cooperate and build a society? Some land is objectively better than other land. — BC

I can understand your position on land, however I am trying to state that it is our own values that give quality. I will admit that my example with rich vs poor was well poor.
If I were to apply my thoughts to the land example...
It would be something like - the land only has value because of the purpose it is used for. I don't think there is a type of land that we as humans can not use. For example most people would consider a dessert useless land, no water or vegetation. However it provides a lot of room for building. Think of Las Vegas, which my knowledge about isn't great, but I believe that Vegas has to transport in water and other things, gaining almost no benefit from the land.
To your end of the argument, what is objectively better? I could understand a place being better for specific activities, but then that would only be for that activity.

How can life be justified in spite of all the suffering it entails? — kirillov

I have a couple of different ideas from my own thoughts and experience. However suffering is part of life so the justification would be just as much part of 'why should one keep living?' and as such some of my ideas are pointed more towards that.
First, I have quite a chaotic idea of my own. Think of a video game, you only have one life, and everything besides this game is darkness.
The only thing you have is that one game, one life. There is no reason not to play. This completely ignores any religion though.
If you return to nothingness without life, is there any reason not to live even if you suffer.
Second, is one most personal to me. I was listening to music and there was a line that went something like, 'to live as me.' It hit me in a very impactful way. The idea of living a life without living as me was horrible. (This has more to do with how to live)
It gave me such a feeling of freedom and confidence in even my own life.
Third, is something I received from a religious leader I met. He told me that God created evil so people can be good. That God created sin so people had freedom. That God gave hope so people can overcome odds.
Following this logic, you might be able to find your own answer.
Fourth is another original idea. If you consider the garden of Eden as perfection, with its eternal bliss and innocence. Then consider the state we are in now. Suffering would be our motivation towards perfection.
That's all I can say now. I hope you consider that all of these ideas have helped my life. So I would say there is some weight behind the,. That is not to say that I would stubbornly ignore any words that would counter them.

If the idea is simply that our external situation (whatever it might be) isn't inherently bad, but rather it's how we choose to view it that determines this, that's a fairly common perspective, often derived from Stoicism. — Tom Storm

I thought that this might have been a common idea, but I just didn't really have an support for that idea.

But human meaning is entirely context-dependent and situational. To try and turn meaning into an abstraction which transcends lived experience would seem fraught. — Tom Storm

What I meant by a different meaning was a lack of meaning, and with that lack of meaning equality. And for the abstraction that transcends lived experience being undesirable, of course it would be. I have decided to put my own values on life going forward while considering multiple views. I think it is important to put the fact that this life being equal is only true while being completely objective. Additionally, I think it is important to live personally, or at least to your own values.

Rich people and poor people are socially equal because, while rich people have many material advantages, poor people have a better chance of building good character. — T Clark

I completely understand why you could see it that way. However my point isn't about material over character. That was only meant to be an example.
There is a drawback to everything in a certain situation.
Money can make you a target of bad people for example.
I'm trying to say that there is no value in anything unless you refuse to look at the entirety of everything.
Do you not think that every person has equal value?
If you only look at society in a superficial way, money and what you can buy with it, you can miss other meaning in your life.
Take it this way If i could offer you 1 billion dollars or a loving family what would you choose?
Do you think everybody would choose the same thing?
Is there even the right answer?
Another way to think of it is a cost benefit analysis, to a rich person getting even a couple thousand dollars for their time is ludicrous, but for others they work for even less. I am trying to look past the personal for a different meaning.

In an ideal world, I believe that guns should not be accessible to a civilian population that doesn't need them, they should be accessible to military personnel, hunters and top level security. — Samlw

I would agree with this, except that there is no such thing as an achievable perfect world. Technology is one thing we cannot take back after it is created.
I do agree with almost everything on this thread though.
However my view is slightly different.
It was already mentioned that guns are a weapon against tyranny and that is one of the most important reasons for pro guns.
However another big thing is the equalizer. A person without a gun can almost never stand up to a person with one. However even a more skilled person with a gun can still be taken down by an amateur with one. It brings most humans to around the same level.
Of course the amount of gun related deaths in america is frightening, but a lot are also committed by people who get guns illegally. If we get rid of all guns in civilian hands it would only be in the government and criminals'.
You might rebuke that we could also crack down tightly on illegal guns, but that is not foolproof. (Which right now sounds like a lame argument to me)
But in an imaginary scenario which assailant would be taken down first. The one with no police officer or one with.
The answer is easily the later, why?, because they have a gun. But what if more people than police officers had that power?
(Just realized I probably explained a lot i didn't need to)
But fun fact, america has tried some amnesty's for guns as well as just straight confiscation, I don't have any real evidence to work on, but I don't think it worked.

I think that people are involving the government too much in this conversation.
If this were a conversation to determine a governmental system or a certain governments effects on right and wrong it would be fine.
However, this is about right and wrong the government has little role in my mind.
To begin with the government is made by the hand of the people and is thus imperfect in anything other than being able to use the hand of the people. (Win for democracy)
That is not my main point; each person has their own sense of right and wrong and their views of others (whether they are good or bad is based on this) The same cannot be said for the laws, their are bad acts that are completely within the law and vice versa.
For example, businesses are usually able to set their own prices for goods. This way they can take advantage of people, this is completely within the law but I would consider it bad.
I'm sure that most people can think of a bad person who is on the right side of the law.
The main point is that law is not a perfect measure of right and wrong.
I wouldn't consider a schemer a good person, just not yet a criminal.
There needs to be a separation between government and self. The government is the will of millions or billions of people and you are a singular will and are more pure in a way. There is no problem in following your own will.
Personally I believe that fear is not the way to create a moral person. (That is not to say that it does not create a person who follows morals) Guilt is however a major part, but so is sympathy. Fear puts you below something, and sympathy equal to.

Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences determine all behaviours. — Truth Seeker

I meant that is not limiting the options.

What we can overcome and what we can't overcome is not free from determinants. — Truth Seeker

At this point I can't help but admit you right. It seems I was thinking too superficially again.
Yes, GENE determines what you can actually do, but it doesn't have as much influence on choice for outside factors. Simply because people can choose to do things they don't know is possible or not.

It seems like a lot of this has gone really out of hand.
The original topic was about the freedom of choice and underlying factors affecting it.
I have gone too far with some of my statements and for that I apologize. I did this because usually when a person states the kind of things you did, it means that they have lost the value of, are trying to deny, or put something in a bad light. However through our correspondence this doesn't entirely seem to be the case with you.
Anyway, I had some fun with this thread.
I will admit that underlying factors such as GENE have effects on our choice (Whether good or bad), But I will retain my point that you can overcome outside factors, such as environment and experience.

But planarian flatworms appear to escape this fate. — Truth Seeker

You learn more everyday.
I can definitely see how this could be a prime subject for research.

No. Planarian flatworms are truly extraordinary organisms with several remarkable biological features that have fascinated scientists for decades. Here are their most impressive characteristics: — Truth Seeker

Wow, that is all very interesting.
I am in no way an expert, or even baseline in this kind of thing.
However, from what I know the DNA chains shorten when cells split. (Or something of the like) Which is what makes us age.
Does this not happen to planarian flatworms?

I am not convinced souls exist. I know that many people believe that humans are immortal souls and souls go to heaven or hell after death depending on their religious beliefs and practices, but I am convinced that these claims are false. Just as I am convinced that the belief that souls reincarnate based on karma is also false.

My thoughts and emotions are not part of me. They are temporary mental states. I am not an entity. I am a temporary sentient process generated by my brain activities. — Truth Seeker

I only used soul as a lack of a better word. I do not exactly believe in all that stuff either. You seem to be stating that you merely exist, which I don't understand as well. You keep on saying that you are merely sentient and able to perceive these thoughts and feeling. But that is not a definition of you. What is perceiving and feeling these experiences and emotions. Is it merely your consciousness?
You also state that experiences and emotions are temporary, you are also a temporary being and there is no shame in taking pride of these things.

You didn't answer any of my questions about how I would know when and where you would jettison me in the vastness of space. Even if I were Elon Musk and owned SpaceX, I would still need to know the time and place. — Truth Seeker

My point is not the method but the possibility, I am not going to spend years of effort to precisely answer those questions. If it is not impossible then it is possible, and that means there is nothing foolproof.
If you think it is impossible then that is just as far as you can go, if you think it is impossible then you think there is no possible method that you are willing/unwilling to do. It is nice to think realistically, but it also dries up possibilities. Other people have probably done what you think impossible, what is the difference between you?

Yes, my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain my choices. I am impersonal about it because it is impersonal. The universe is not conscious. It didn't intend for me to come into existence. It didn't plan what genes, environments, nutrients and experiences I would have. — Truth Seeker

Yet you are still alive today as a human. You are part of the universe, and as such all the things the universe have given you are also part of your own being.

I really admire planarian flatworms. — Truth Seeker

Is their ability to regrow their heads the only reason you admire them?

No human is currently immortal. So, I don't have any way to test how being immortal would affect a human. I have already tested how being immortal affects planarian flatworms. They thrive unless I kill them by denaturing their cells by heating them to 300 degrees Celsius. Since they can't talk using English, I couldn't ask them questions about their personality. — Truth Seeker

That's actually kind of cool.
How exactly do they thrive?
And testing the personality would be impossible.

I think Joe will choose that object of all available objects which will lead in summary to Joe's greatest satisfaction. If Joe feels satisfaction in proving that there is a "free will", he will choose an object he dislikes just to demonstrate his alleged free will. But in fact he just compared the satisfaction regarding his preferred object with the satisfaction regarding the free-will-demo. During the comparison he found out that the free-will-demo will make more fun. So Joe was determined to do the free-will-demo. His personality and personal taste forced him to do this. Yes, there were other choices and they were free in the sense that nobody was threatening him with a gun. Freedom requires a reference -- free of what? Free of threats. But the choices were not free regarding his personality and his personal taste. Joe likes the idea of a "free will". That's his ideological taste. So he is determined to construct a proof in order to satisfy his taste. — Quk

I understand that without all the extenuating factors, like being held at gunpoint, a person would likely choose what they like. However is that always true?
In every single case in every single universe in all the multiverses, will it always hold true? I don't think so. It is possible even if it is unlikely.
I do agree with your point that you need a reference for freedom though. (That's some good stuff)

My thoughts and emotions are not part of me. They are part of my subjective experiences. I am a temporary sentient process generated by my brain activities. This sentient process is paused during dreamless sleep cycles and by general anaesthesia. When all of my brain activities stop permanently, I will cease to exist. — Truth Seeker

We will just have to disagree, all of my emotions and thoughts are part of who I think I am. My emotions can't be others, my thoughts can't be others, they are mine and part of me. What do you find the difference between yourself and emotions, are they not yours. I understand that you think they are different from your thoughts but they are still part of you.

My preferences arise due to my brain activities, which occur due to my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

And I am saying that these are part of you. You are not just a soul, your body and factors you might consider temporary are also part of you. Your brain is a part of you, if it arises from your brain it is also yours.

How would I know that you were going to abduct me and bring me to space in a rocket, then jettison me into the vacuum of space? I don't personally know people like Elon Musk who have the means to go to space, and I certainly am not rich enough to pay SpaceX to rescue me from the vacuum of space. Even if SpaceX rescue me for free, how would SpaceX know exactly where I am, given how vast space is? How would SpaceX get to me from Earth in the mere five minutes it would take for me to die? — Truth Seeker

Im not saying it is easy, but is it impossible? And I am talking about exactly impossible, that means no way no matter what you do it cannot happen. It is possible to talk to Elon Musk (Not easy, but certainly not impossible).

I never said that I don't want others to influence my decisions, nor do I hate the influence others have on my life. — Truth Seeker

Then I assume you are being impersonal about it, you admit that these experiences have an influence on you. Originally you say that your choice isn't completely free, and my stance is that it is not better to desire to become that way,

Why would it play a much less vital role? — Truth Seeker

I am not talking about a role in their life, but more of their personality.
My original intent was that because of immortality many people would experience extremely similar or even exactly similar experiences. This would cause their personalities and some views to be exactly the same.
Genes are important to their life, but immortality is much to long that experiences become more important to personality than genes.

My sense of self is generated by my brain activities. I am not my thoughts, just as I am not my emotions. Thoughts and emotions are temporary mental states that I experience. — Truth Seeker

You are not these but they are all a part of you. Do you know who you are? If you say all these things aren't a part of you, then what are you?

Yes, but what we like and dislike are not freely chosen by us. Our preferences are determined by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

This one is highly related to the everything else. Are you mad that you chose the flavor of ice cream you like? Your preference is also a part of you.

This is false. If you abduct me and release me in the vacuum of space, would I be able to survive their by overcoming the lack of oxygen and the lack of heat? No, I wouldn't. — Truth Seeker

Not exactly wrong but just extremely hard. If I drop you off in space, what if you prearranged to be picked up. While the idea is extremely difficult and would take a super genius to predict it is not impossible.
If I am trying to kill you and you are trying to save yourself there is a chance for either of us to survive. I don't win just because I want to kill you and made a plan. What you are saying is that there is a foolproof plan that could absolutely kill you. I think that you are thinking that you must have a way to survive, which is different from a possibility. If you fail, it could be because of incompetence instead of impossibility. While extremely hard now, possibilities in the future might make it easier and even commonplace.
Do we judge the world for what it is now, or what it can be in the future?

don't understand what you mean. Please explain. — Truth Seeker

I believe you have stated that experiences play a role in your behavior, or something to the same effect. While another person influencing you could always seem bad, I might see it as a gift. The memories of the experience you have is a gift/burden/responsibility (One or more of these). I think it wrong to hate the influence other people have had on my life, just because I don't want them to influence my decisions.

I never said that we should free ourselves from others. Nor did I say that I want to be disconnected from others. — Truth Seeker

My original statement that provoked this response is based on the fact that others influence can be a gift. If it is a gift like I say then trying to throw it away is the same as freeing yourself from others.

No, all four categories of variables - genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences are essential. — Truth Seeker

To what end?
I am not saying that it is not important at all, but only minimally so. In normal human life I would put a much greater emphasis on it, however if we were to talk about becoming immortal I think it would play a much less vital role.

They occur due to brain activities which are determined by genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Ahhhhh, I understand better now. I have thought about this before myself. Everything one does and will do is affected by everything.
However, is there a point to this? Are you separate from your thoughts?
Is a person not their own thoughts, not their own GENE? A person is made of these things even if it is influenced by others.
In the case of ice cream, is a person ever upset that they chose the flavor of ice cream that they like.
Some people might not like other people having an influence on them, but personally this is going too far for me. While our choices are not absolutely free and unfettered, there are choices that we like. You can overcome any outside factors, and you are at one with all internal factors. There is no problem here,
Additionally removing any influence from yourself is denying your connection with others. If your mother made a delicious food that you love, say pasta. Would denying your own love for pasta even if developed by another person be good? Would it not be saying that you deny those experiences?
(I started asking a lot of questions to be lazier)
While absolutely freeing yourself from others can seem desirable, you are also dooming yourself to be absolutely alone. I am glad that I turned back before I went to far myself. The chains that bind you are also your connection to other people.

If you took two identical twins and raised one to be a goat herder in Kenya and raised another to be a Navy SEAL in the USA, their GENE Profiles would be hugely different because while they started out as zygotes with identical genes, they had very different environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Yes, but how does that connect to our original topic. You are basically agreeing with me that the Gene part in GENE is less important than the other parts.
The original topic was about immortality, if Genes are the least important out of GENE then what about immortals. How would their bodies deal with nutrients? Would they all not choose a similar environment or environments to live in? Would they all not have experiences so similar to each other that they aren't different.
When considering immortality, you have to consider everything. Even the nearly impossible.
When a monkey jumps on a type writer for eternity he will eventually write books more beautiful than any human could ever write.

For example, if I had received training in how to disarm assailants, I would use that training to disarm the shopkeeper holding the gun to my head and buy strawberry-flavoured ice-cream instead of chocolate-flavoured ice-cream. — Truth Seeker

You are saying that only if you had training would you try to disarm the assailant. This is wrong, even without training you can try.
I think I understand the difference in our thoughts. Your points would work if you follow logic intensively.
However, I do not rely entirely on logic. You would ask yourself, how could I disarm the assailant without training. While I could consider acting regardless of my ability.
I understand that you are trying to avoid useless possibilities. Obviously if you are not trained to disarm a gun then you would very likely fail and die. However, while futile attempts they are possibilities and that possibility is a choice.
Logically futility is useless, but emotionally not trying is also a sin. If that gun was pointed at your head by a serial killer, who would kill you no matter what. Would you still think about whether you have the qualifications. No, you would try even if it is futile.
For things like choice, I do not think people can rule out possibilities based solely on their own thoughts.

Our choices occur according to our unique GENE Profiles. The closer two organisms are in terms of their GENE Profiles, the more similar are the choices they make. — Truth Seeker

I think you are putting to much emphasis on genes, (I have read your other current thread).
I think that experiences play more of a role in a person than genes. I see genes as more of a foundation, they decide more early factors which then affect later factors.
An example for this, think of two people across the world from each other. Both have lived a pretty ordinary life, they are salary men, an average worker. While they have different genes their experience is not much different. If you don't know the people you wouldn't see them as anything different. While there would obviously be small changes in culture and the like, there genes play a smaller role than their experiences in life. Now compare them to a soldier, or more precisely a veteran. The veteran has gone through many life and death battles. He would obviously be incomparable to a soldiers. Is the difference between them their genes, or experience?
(Just realized I like to use the word 'obviously' a lot)

I said that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

While an interesting idea, I disagree with some of it. People can overcome some of the these factors.
In your example with ice cream, even if somebody loves chocolate ice cream and hates strawberry (Vanilla man myself), they can still choose strawberry. It is not like it is impossible.
Additionally, with your example of being held at gun point. You could simply die. While sacrificing my life over ice cream is not something I see myself doing, it is still a possibility. Wrestling for the gun, running away. It is not as simple as chocolate or strawberry.
I think these two examples show how you can overcome experience and environments respectfully.
A choice is when multiple options are available to you, nobody can force another person to do something. You just overly consider the costs of refusing as impossible. (Which simply means you have a different value on life)

I will check out your flash-fiction, thanks.

I am not convinced that having an infinite amount of time would cause me to procrastinate indefinitely on everything I want to do. — Truth Seeker

I would disagree, sometimes it is just one slip up or letting something slide just once that changes your entire being. While it is possible to not give in a single time, it is very unlikely even more so over the long time of immortality. That is not to say that once you fall into Procrastination you cannot come out. However the main problem is if immortality is wide spread,if there is no stop in reproduction there could be huge amounts of people (billions, trillions, and even more) who are procrastinating.
Not to mention that I think everybody would be a near carbon copy of each other. If you think about life as a funnel, everybody would end up at the same place after long enough time. (Their experiences would barely be different from each other)
For you personally, procrastination might be a different problem. You yourself state that immortality wouldn't make you procrastinate on the things you 'want' to do. What about the things you don't want to do. I think it would take a very special person to enjoy every part of life. Otherwise in your case, you would ignore the things you don't want to do in favor for the things you do want to do. (Which might not be a problem, but I would consider it so.)

please explain how death gives meaning to our lives. — Truth Seeker

Logically thinking things that are rarer (or in this case are around for less time) are more valuable. It is just very hard to put a value on life in the first place. For me it has more to do with the inspiration of life, why do anything and why not do anything when you live forever. You can always do it later and literally push it off for eternity.
It might be easier to specifically think of it in terms of time. When you have an infinite amount of time value loses itself because you can do everything. However when time is on a clock you can really only choose the things that are more precious. Would you waste a normal human life without reaching your dream?
Additionally immortality would be perfection, it would absolutely stop evolution. This is of less concern, because the method to gain immortality would override any imperfection in my mind. However the original intention with that is if humans as we are now gain immortality. Emotionally, I think it is impossible for humans to become immortal. The amount of time that passes would make anyone an emotionless robot. (However, I have not experienced immortality, so I wouldn't know =) A body would still be alive, but the mind and emotions of the person would be all but ruined.

Some organisms are biologically immortal, e.g. planarian flatworms, immortal jellyfish, hydra, etc. If we could genetically engineer all living things to be biologically immortal and place them in spaceships to visit other star systems, thus spreading life across the universe, lives could be saved forever. — Truth Seeker

I think that immortality is wrong, death is of course horrible but it is also a part of life. Personally it is what I believe gives meaning to our lives.
As for religious differences and persecution obviously have no objections, but I can't think of an effective way to stop it.

How would I get all the people to unite and work together to achieve the 14 worldwide objectives? — Truth Seeker

I don't have a terribly bright idea of how to go about this, because getting every person's support is damn near impossible. However if you stand firm to your principles and never give in, I think those that support the same things you do will follow.

This question has no utility - it think it is called a rhetorical question. — Pieter R van Wyk

To whether this question has meaning or not I think that I, the one who asked the question, would be able to tell better.
My intent with the question is whether you think that times in the past are better than now.
Additionally, I think some people are trying to say that we would be in the same situation even without philosophy or even worse. Not having philosophy wouldn't change whether we have poverty or not.

In my opinion the only way to complete some of these would be world domination. The problem is that if you want to achieve these objectives worldwide, you would obviously need to be able to affect the whole world.
And to what end do you want to complete these?
You obviously can't save lives forever, do you just want a quantitative amount of lives saved?
What exactly do you mean by religious harmony? (One religion, or just coexistence and acceptance)
I would say it could definitely be possible to do this in just one country, and I think that is what you will have to try. (Start with one country and then move onward.)
I would say unless you're the billionaire batman, you will need to gain the support of many people. This also isn't something you need to do alone.
To do these things you will need to advance education and technology. People will always have to fight for themselves, and advancements to education can make each person better which can overall improve the situation.
As for how I would go about it, have a strong message and gain publicity. You need a plan on how to make these things happen, gain the support of the public and then push forward to change.
And finally if you are especially interested, look towards history. Modern advancements in all those segments all happened for a reason, and how people change the world would definitely be helpful towards your goals.
Good Luck and don't forget there are always consequences even if they are unknown.

For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. — Pieter R van Wyk

In my opinion the only way to prevent these is perfection, which is impossible. From my understanding, Philosophy is a bunch of people trying and thinking everything they can to improve (Or at least that is how I think it should be).
Do you think one person can bring about such a huge change? While people do work together it is not simply 1+1=2 in terms of ability.
War might be easier to understand, can one person stop war. War is violence between two countries (rudimentary definition). On a smaller scale imagine two people, if one person wants to punch another, and follows through then it is violence. Can a person stop that?
If a country wants to start a war, what can stop them?
The only way to eradicate war, is to control people which is impossible, and most people would consider immoral.
Not to mention not all war is bad. War can be fought for many purposes, you would stop both the good and bad of war.
Its the same with everything else you mentioned, the only way to stop it 100% is to take away their freedom.
Which leads me to the question, would you rather live in today's world or in any point in the past? (and if the later please tell me what time)

I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder on the 5th of March 1998. My parents told me to ignore the psychiatrist and not take the prescribed medications. I didn't listen to my parents. I trusted my psychiatrist and took the prescribed medications. 27 years and 3 months later, I am still struggling with depression and all the side-effects of the prescribed medications. I have gone from 65 kg to 98 kg as my medication causes weight gain. My mental illness has ruined my physical health, education, career and relationships. I often wonder how my life would be if I had listened to my parents instead of my psychiatrist. — Truth Seeker

First I would like to state that I am in no way qualified to be saying this, however I do have a slight understanding and sympathy for your situation.
Looking through your words in this chat it seems like this one decision is one of your major regrets. Understandably, this one choice has changed your life in ways nobody can absolutely know.
However, today you are still alive, and that is nothing to be ashamed or regret over. As you have said it has been nearly thirty years since that one choice, do you believe you have not changed at all?
Does that one decision, that was possibly wrong, mean that all of your decisions to this day will always be as such?
Though I can't see into your mind, or experience the pain you have. I myself have also had some very self depressing thoughts, and while the effects might be nowhere close to yours they are also a hill that I will stand and defend.
How I came out of my own self depression I would say would be cowardice, doubt, and then bravery and recklessness. I always believed there was an answer out there that could save me.
As for my advice from experience, find one thing that you love, that you can't abandon no matter what. Once I found that thing, any self depressing thoughts became insults against that love.
It is always okay to start anew, to leave some of your mistakes behind.
(Everything prior was just me brainwashing myself into thinking OP needs help from my experience)
Now your main post was about making choices and second guessing yourself. You ask the best way to make choices.
Personally, I think making guesses based on your values is important. If it is merely a choice and not a question then chose so that you don't regret.
I also think this goes beyond simple desires. Obviously choosing something easy now could very likely become something you regret. It is also important to state that I don't follow the completely logical approach to life.
Make a choice that you don't regret choosing. For example, you could choose to gamble or not to. While to me whether you do it depends on the stakes, there might be a time where you choose either.
Would you regret not gambling, maybe. But you would definitely regret it once you lose.
On the other hand, if not gambling means you remain the same, and winning means you gain something that you were missing, then it might be a good choice to gamble. You don't regret wanting what you were aiming for. (It should be obvious , but not only actual gambling.)
The important thing in choice is that you are the one making it, and not others.

I did use the word 'Objective' in a confusing way in this post.
One thing I wanted to know was when it came to art what was the judge of quality.
Specifically if there was one thing you needed no matter what. (I am still open to opposing ideas)
Do a number of factors combined have to meet some standard? But if something was slightly less than that standard, would it also not qualify?
The reason for this post is that in art I don't understand anything about why people like it (besides something just being cool). For example, the Mona Lisa to me is just a painting of a woman, but when I think about how the world views it there is a big difference. Much less abstract art.
Books are different, because they are stories and people have different tastes and experiences, but even then I don't understand why people like books I find especially boring or bad. (I know people have different tastes)
However I still don't understand what makes 'the world go round' in the sense of artistic quality.

I think one part I get stuck over is that for something to be good it should be liked on some level, because people should be able to recognize good. However I already stated that just having the majority or a group of people like something isn't quality.
Would I still be able to call something good if nobody liked it?
Or is it just the difference between good work, and popularity?
Or is it the desire for what others to also like what I think is good?

If you have an idea or opinion you would like to share, please do so.

I don't think I quite understand this:

The question J and I are wondering about is: how far does this go? When does speech about a proper name become nonsense because a contradiction has arisen between an assertion and something essential about the object of the assertion? How did Kripke handle this question? — frank

The reference is entirely subjective.
A human is saying your words and it will obviously fall to that persons view. In brief terms its just a lie, and I don't understand why you are putting extra emphasis on this.
I generally do not understand, so if you are willing to explain please be happy to.

It seems to me that the conversation is limited when you don't have clear definitions of what it is we are talking about. — Harry Hindu

It's true that I am not as much 'in the thick of it' as you, I also now realize that my comment doesn't exactly fit the situation.
However, what I wanted to point out was that fitting strictly to textbook definitions and using them as a tool by following them to a T seems wrong to me. However what I previously responded to was not such a situation in this case, but it did seem like that person was trying to put their own definition to the word.

Well, this isn't a delusion because it's true. The English noun "woman" doesn't just mean this. It has more than one meaning. It can also refer to a non-biological gender. — Michael

I would just like to say that I don't like using English definitions like this.
Let me explain, the English language was and is made by a person or people. While we do need specific definitions for terms, limiting the conversation through definitions just seems wrong to me. (I haven't been here the entire time so I might be off base.)
Then I was wondering about the focus on physiological attributes of certain genders. I think it had to do with appearance connecting to a sense of safety (but I may be wrong.)
There are many people who act with attributes of a different gender without transitioning. For example, and only for understanding, you have probably seen on tv somewhere gay or lesbian people acting more feminine or masculine respectively.
So gender doesn't only have to do with physiological attributes.