## [Biweekly Challenge] Forbidden Research

* Author: u/alexanderwales  *Time flies like an arrow**
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7og8ik/biweekly_challenge_forbidden_research/
* Score: 19

* Created: 2018-01-06T02:00:11

### Post:

## Last Time

[Last time](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7joi4e/biweekly_challenge_selfdestruction/), the prompt was "Self-Destruction". Our winner is /u/blasted0glass, with their story, ["Collaboration"](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7joi4e/biweekly_challenge_selfdestruction/drcgx3m/). Congratulations to /u/blasted0glass for their fourth win! Only one more until you join the coveted superwinner club!

##### This Time

This time, the challenge will be **Forbidden Research**. There are very few areas of research that people are expressly forbidden from pursuing, but they do exist, whether for moral, ethical, political, or practical reasons. This prompt shouldn't be taken to be *just* "Things Man Was Not Meant to Know", though that's the obvious avenue for it; some things are dangerous, unorthodox, or simply tied up in political red tape. Remember that prompts are to inspire, not to limit.

The winner will be decided **Wednesday, January 24th.** You have until then to post your reply and start accumulating upvotes. It is strongly suggested that you get your entry in as quickly as possible once this thread goes up; this is part of the reason that prompts are given in advance. Like reading? It's suggested that you come back to the thread after a few days have passed to see what's popped up. The reddit "save" button is handy for this.

##### Rules

* 300 word minimum, no maximum. Post as a link to Google Docs, pastebin, Dropbox, etc. **This is mandatory.**

* No plagiarism, but you're welcome to recycle and revamp your own ideas you've used in the past.

* Think before you downvote.

* Winner will be determined by "best" sorting.

* Winner gets reddit gold, special winner flair, and bragging rights. Five-time winners get even more special winner flair, and their choice of prompt if they want it.

* All top-level replies to this thread should be submissions. Non-submissions (including questions, comments, etc.) belong in the companion thread, and will be aggressively removed from here.

* Top-level replies must be a link to Google Docs, a PDF, your personal website, etc. It is suggested that you include a word count and a title when you're linking to somewhere else.

* In the interest of keeping the playing field level, please refrain from cross-posting to other places until after the winner has been decided.

* No idea what rational fiction is? [Read the wiki!](http://www.reddit.com/r/rational/wiki/index)

##### Meta

If you think you have a good prompt for a challenge, [add it to the list](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B6HaZc8FYkr6l6Q4cwBc9_-Yq1g0f_HmdHK5L1tbEbA/edit?usp=sharing) (remember that [a good prompt is not a recipe](http://www.reddit.com/r/WritingPrompts/wiki/prompts?src=RECIPE)). Also, if you want a quick index of past challenges, I've [posted them on the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/wiki/weeklychallenge).

##### Next Time

Next time, the challenge theme will be **Pioneer**. Write a story about someone (or a group of people) who are the first at something, whether test subjects, explorers, or thinkers. This is an extremely common trope in fiction, as well as the subset of rational fiction, largely because being a pioneer tends to be more interesting than following in the footsteps of a pioneer. Remember that prompts are to inspire, not to limit.

**Next challenge's thread will go up on 1/24**. Please private message me with any questions or comments. The companion thread for recommendations, ideas, or general chit-chat can [be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7ogds0/challenge_companion_forbidden_research/).

### Comments:

> **u/None** [+36]  (6 hours later)
> 
> [Forbidden Theology](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PwVxST3SzdL4yi-X34AMWqmzm5LR2NHvUMnGsg7XLGI/edit?usp=sharing) (1728 words)

>> **u/rhaps0dy4** [+2]  (a day later)
>> 
>> I may be thick, but I don't get why [at the end,](#s "God's threats ring hollow. God can still strike down the new abbott at any moment, like he did with the old one.")

>>> **u/russxbox** [+11]  (a day later)
>>> 
>>> [I think ](#s "the point is that if God were able to strike him down, he would have been dead before he completed the final train of thought. His realizing this is what causes the threats to ring hollow, since it becomes evident to the new abbot that God has no ability to back up anything he might say and the old abbot's death was just natural causes at a coincidental time.")

>>> **u/None** [+8]  (3 days later)
>>> 
>>> u/russxbox got the gist of it.
>>> 
>>> [Additionally,](#s " consider that this is the first time the abbot's faith and his curiosity are in opposition. Every time he questioned authority, he was referred to an authority beyond that, and now that he stands before God, there is no further authority. If God fails to explain something, that's it. As faith and curiosity are in opposition, one must now fail; this is what the abbot means when he thinks that he feels something breaking within him. He doubts God; not His existence, but His divinity.")

>>>> **u/rhaps0dy4** [+3]  (6 days later)
>>>> 
>>>> [Yet,](#s "God may fail to explain something (as is this the case) simply because they did not wish to do so. Thus God's failure to explain does not necessarily imply their lack of divinity.")

>>>>> **u/None** [+6]  (6 days later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> [You're right.](#s "There hasn't been an absolute proof of anything in this story, including divinity. God issuing hollow threats may be weird, but maybe He just works in mysterious ways. What changes is not that the abbot gains an absolute proof of anything, just that he is able to observe flaws in God for the first time. They may just seem like flaws, but nonetheless, he is able to observe them, and he finds that he cannot stop himself from thinking about them (another flaw in God's creation, if within himself). Faced with God, he cannot help breaking His laws, and his faith can't bear that.")

>> **u/MultipartiteMind** [+2]  (a month later)
>> 
>> While I prefer the official stance [](#s "(it can't mind-read or kill)") (and incidentally I liked a lot the [](#s "green text on a black screen")), I was amused by the alternative interpretation that [](#s "it *could* kill him (through an implant or similar?), but just didn't have omniscience, in which case he needs to be very very careful with how he reacts to those threats in case of a purge...").

> **u/None** [+26]  (7 hours later)
> 
> [deleted]

>> **u/DangerouslyUnstable** [+4]  (a day later)
>> 
>> I have to admit I don't get the ending. [Spoiler] (#s 'I assume the AI is purposefully killing them but why?')

>>> **u/None** [+8]  (a day later)
>>> 
>>> [deleted]

>>>> **u/rhaps0dy4** [+10]  (6 days later)
>>>> 
>>>> Oh, this is Factorio fanfiction? That's quite cool!

> **u/Laborbuch** [+8]  (5 days later)
> 
> [Overview for a study of UNPERSON#54’s encyclopaedical work](https://docs.google.com/document/d/11qd6Ibh6YcocQoYYNM9vsoQO1ry0RCapCfLKQxFtvuk/edit?usp=sharing) (687 words)

>> **u/CannotThinkOfAThing** [+3]  (5 days later)
>> 
>> As a story, this doesn't work so well for me. As a piece of world building I like it though.

>>> **u/Laborbuch** [+2]  (6 days later)
>>> 
>>> It basically is. It’s from one of the universes I keep plugging at, and forbidden research (and loss of knowledge) are one of the major building blocks of that setting.

> **u/None** [-3]  (7 days later)
> 
> [removed]

>> **u/jimrandomh** [+3]  (7 days later)
>> 
>> Mod from lesserwrong.com here. We'd rather not have this content, at least as-is. Since LW2 is not a fiction site, fiction written in first person needs to somehow unambiguously communicate what it is, within the first paragraph.

---