Essay Abstract

How should humanity steer the future? Does this phrasing describe the ideal relationship that a civilization might have with its future? Maybe our concept of steering in this context has always been reversed with respect to what is fundamentally optimal, which would serve to explain all the crashing. This paper will establish that there is a potential technology which would instead allow the future to steer humanity.

Author Bio

Aaron M. Feeney was born in Buffalo, NY, in 1974. He received a B.A. degree in philosophy from Binghamton University, and later received an M.A. degree in the same field from The University of New Mexico (2002). In addition to pursuing his music and writing projects, his current program of study is focused on electronics, computer-aided design, and industrial technology.

Dear Mr. Feeney,

I tried my level best to read your essay; unfortunately, it contained an error in the second paragraph that was so egregious, it made it impossible to read further.

You wrote: "Every eye, camera, microscope and telescope is a line-of-sight past viewer. This is because it always takes time for light from any source to reach any lens. You are completely and utterly wrong.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at the constant "speed" of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent "speed" that is less than the "speed" of light. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract.. As a surface can only travel at the constant "speed" of light, and that speed cannot be exceeded, a surface cannot peel away from a sub-surface. As a sub-surface is attached to a surface by a random fluctuating energy field, a sub-surface cannot reduce its inconsistent speed to the point where it becomes inertial. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

I use the term "speed" of light merely to make it easier for the reader to understand my theory. Actually light cannot move because it does not have a surface. Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the "speed" of light. When it strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.

Every eye, every camera, avery microscope and every telescope can only see or photograph the scene that is taking place here and now.

Glad to have had the chance to help you to understand reality.

Regards,

    Dear Mr. Fisher,

    Your critique does not disprove what I wrote, or show it to be in error. Can you prove that no interval of time (the way we measure time) transpires between the emission of a laser pulse and its reception a meter away? If you cannot, you will have to retract your objection, because my statement was made in the context of the way we measure time. On the other hand, if you can prove such a thing, I will certainly be impressed.

    Now, of course, a photon doesn't age or "experience" any time; this fact emerges in standard relativity as a limit of time dilation. However, time from the photon's perspective is irrelevant in the context of the statement from my paper that you found objectionable.

    At the end of the day, I am primarily concerned with the advancement of knowledge, so if you still feel that my statement really is wrong (in terms of the way we measure time), please explain further. If you cannot establish such a case, it would be a simple matter to concede that you had been interpreting my statement out of its inherent context, and to then state that you are willing to accept that it is correct within its appropriate domain of application.

    Dear Mr. Feeney,

    There is no such thing as time so it cannot be measured. A clock does not measure anything. A thermometer can only measure the temperature of its immediate surroundings. A speedometer can only measure the immediacy of the vehicle it is moving in. The way the scientists used to to measure the so-called "speed" of light was to fabricate a straight lined vacuum tube and fire a laser beam through it a few thousand times. Supposedly, one end of the vacuum tube had a light sensor affixed to it. Except as light does not have a surface, it cannot be detected. The only thing that can be detected would be trillions of real particles that have been agitated by a light radiant as each particle has a surface that light can attach itself to. A computer program was then devised to calculate the maximum "speed" the light would be able to travel from a fixed commencement point of time at one end of the vacuum tube to the so-called light sensor. Of course the computer program gave the approximately 186,000 mps as being the speed of light. Please take out a piece of paper and a pencil and a stopwatch. Now with one hand start the stopwatch and with the other hand draw a line on the piece of paper. As you complete drawing the line, stop the stopwatch. Do this several thousand times carefully recording the line drawing times as they occur. Then calculate the mean time and you will be able to establish the "speed" of line drawing.

    Joe Fisher

    Thank you, Mr. Fisher. Your comments are now sufficient to allow anyone who reads our conversation to decide for themselves whether your objection is relevant.

    5 days later

    (You replied in my forum, thanks again.) Your essay makes me (a non-philosopher) think hard, but then puts me in two minds. So I begin with a question to help me choose between them. You claim that a foreknowledge machine (error-free, definite future viewer) is possible. Would you defend that claim in the case of an outcome that is non-trivial in regard to steering humanity? What sort of non-trivial outcome would it correctly predict? Please give an example, if possible.

    If you'd defend the strong claim, then I'd try to refute you. Otherwise I'd re-read your essay in light of the imperfect future viewer of reason, and mind (which you sidestep on page 1), because I feel your insights are still applicable in this weaker application. - Mike

    Hi Mike,

    Let me clarify and then you might change your main question. You ask: "What sort of non-trivial outcome would it correctly predict?" Foreknowledge machines are not in the business of prediction at all. (Yes, I know I used the description "predictively useful," since predictions could be based on viewer foreknowledge and they would always be right. However, viewer foreknowledge itself does not predict. If that description caused confusion, I will consider using another.)

    Instead of predict, a foreknowledge machine shows a given future outcome exactly as it will occur, provided that that machine, during that viewing attempt, is not in an interference viewing scenario with respect to that outcome. (If so, it will only provide ambiguous information, if it operates at all.) Also, it is very important to note that foreknowledge machines won't reveal just any future. No future will emerge from foreknowledge machines that a civilization will (or would have ultimately decided to) try to avoid, since anything in their power to avoid that they would also ultimately want to avoid will not appear in viewer foreknowledge. (The case of an event that they might want to avoid if considered in isolation, but which turns out to be a necessary step toward a later outcome that is in their long-term best interest, does not qualify as an event that they would ultimately want to avoid.) This explains why different factions who use foreknowledge machines will converge upon the same objectives. They cannot work at cross-purposes to one another, since it is impossible for one faction to see one outcome and any other faction to see another. So, while foreknowledge machines do not predict anything, a non-trivial example of an outcome they would show in a civilization's future would be the gradual elimination of the concept of collective enemies. Another non-trivial example is given in technical note ten.

    To respond further to your questions, I would like to clarify that I do not claim that foreknowledge machines are possible. I establish that they are logically possible--in the context of establishing that Cassandra machines are not logically possible--and I leave it to the next thirty years of science and engineering to determine if they are possible (i.e., physically realizable).

    Also, what I sidestepped on page one is not an "imperfect future viewer of reason, and mind." What I sidestepped was the mere concept of a person who is able to gain knowledge of the future through mystical means; such a process would not involve reason. Reason allows for prediction, in some contexts, but no important aspect of my paper involves predictions in any context. My paper is about transcending predictions and entering an age of certainty. Now, as for mystics, while many kings and emperors have relied upon those who have claimed to be able to access information from the future, the manifestation of such skills has never been shown to be sufficiently robust to be seriously considered as centrally important for the conduct of a modern civilization. Of course, questions as to whether such skills do indeed exist are still highly relevant to the paper--if the human mind is capable of accessing foreknowledge, then it should eventually be possible to engineer a machine that can do so much more reliably and objectively. However, this is a side issue, so sidestepping the topic of mystical foreknowledge entirely, especially in such a short paper, seemed appropriate.

    Let us continue this productive conversation until you decide what you would like to argue or express. I would not mind at all if we go back and forth several times.

    Aaron,

    Lovely essay. I'm sold. Can I order two please, with an option on a dozen more (once I've checked the first ones work!).

    And I always used to think our foreknowledge machine was the one full of wisdom in out heads... Aha! I now see the massive market potential!

    Seriously though, a lovely idea and well written, turning the whole question inside out and back to front. If you'd like to go upside down and the other way round as well do check out my essay where Bob does just that - some time in the future!

    Thanks for a fascinating read. Now I do have a couple of problems scoring it. Can you please check your future machine and help me out. The first one was that as you have no scores yet it would put you in the lead! No problem, except with a 10 the trolls would all pounce with the ones! (as they did mine). Worth the risk? or perhaps a lower score? Better to wait? But what's going to happen? I suspect you've already used your machine and responded because suddenly I can't score at all! The button has stopped working. I'm logged in and all. I've made a note and shall return! (or remind me on my own blog).

    Best of luck. I hope you get some scores in the meantime.

    Best wishes

    Peter

      Aaron,

      Your essay is very interesting to read and thought-provoking, as the very funny comment above by Peter Jackson demonstrates. I really liked the way you tackled the problem of "seeing the future" by distinguishing between 3 types of machines: Everett, Cassandra and Foreknowledge. Of course, if our world operates along the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics (Many Worlds), we have many futures and we will discover that it is impossible to make a Foreknowledge machine work. But our failure to make a Foreknowledge machine work could also be caused by the fact that our future is so messed-up that any information given by the machine would cause us to try to change what we see... a very dark possibility indeed!

      On the other hand, if a Foreknowledge machine could be constructed and would begin to give actual foreknowledge, it would be a wonderful thing indeed, because it would prove that we have a future worth pursuing! It would also create a "virtuous paradox": our foreknowledge of our "positive future" would make us behave in the precise way to create that positive future! What a wonderful idea for a Sci-Fi novel: a Foreknowledge machine is constructed but refuses to give results, so humanity has to embark on all sorts of "positive" reforms, until finally we are on the right track and the machine starts giving results!

      I teach physics at the college level, and when I talk about relativity, I always take time to talk about time travel and paradoxes: in the future, I will certainly use the ideas that you presented in your essay in my teaching, and I don't even need a Foreknowledge machine to tell me that!

      Speaking of teaching, in my essay I propose that we increase the ability of humanity to steer the future successfully by refocusing education on the knowledge that is the most relevant to the future of humanity. If you have time to check it out, rate it and comment on it, I would certainly appreciate it.

      Marc

      Thanks for explaining so patiently, Aaron. Such a machine is infeasible, but I was wrong to imply that it would always be so (sorry); I can't prove that. I still want to re-read your essay from the vantage of reason as an imperfect past/future viewer (not a predictor, but a fuzzy viewer). I'll do that shortly (on a clear thinking day!) and see what comes out of it. - Warmly, Mike

      Aaron,

      Your abstract does draw in the reader, dangling a technology before us that has the future steering humanity. Building a foreknowledge machine is perhaps more reasonable than trying to get humankind to work together on a solution that provides survival and a future.

      I would wonder how long it will take to build a foreknowledge machine. Will we not destroy ourselves before that happens? Most of us speak of the right approaches and means of steering the future. Yours is ready made -- at least upon discovery.

      Jim

        Hi Jim,

        Thanks for your supportive comments. I'm glad to see these ideas taking root. Yes, such technology would guarantee that all parties who use it will end up working together toward the same goals, no matter what their agendas may have been previously. I honestly think we can figure out all the necessary mysteries in order to build the first foreknowledge machines within the next thirty years. I refuse to believe that we might destroy ourselves before the great breakthroughs emerge... but until they do, one can only hope for the best.

        Aaron

        Your paper is an interesting topic. Time travel and obtaining information from the future is an interesting subject. I will be honest that I doubt it can become a practical technology, well not in the way most people think. I am bumping the score of your paper back up.

        On the plus side with time travel, it can only work in a quantum universe. A closed timelike loop exists only if the quantum wave in the closed path constructively interferes with itself. The grandfather paradox is then "solved" because there is a probability amplitude that I might kill my grandfather and the closed timelike loop can exist according to the proper constructive interference of the closed loop with itself and with commensurate outcomes in the future. This does permit one to perform NP problems in P time. One can prime factorize large numbers in P time. It is done essentially for the same reason one can build a time machine after getting the instructions, where upon you travel into the past and give yourself the instructions.

        The big problem with time travel is that the sort of spacetime which permits closed timelike curves (time travel) violates the Hawking-Penrose energy condition. The energy part of the stress-energy condition is such that T^{00} < 0. This results in some funny problems. In particular the quantum field theory for the mass-energy source of this spacetime has no minimum level. This means there is an infinite number of states the field can drop down and in doing so emit an infinite number of radiation quanta. That is really bad, and an argument for why this sort of thing does not exist.

        In spite of this closed timelike loops exist in the interior of black holes. A Kerr-Newman black hole has a timelike interior bounded by the interior horizon that is a Cauchy horizon and a singularity with closed timelike curves that orbit it. This permits a range of hypercomputations, or second order λ-calculus. Problems that are undecidable by Turing-Godel theorems are solvable! Again the wave function constructively interferes with itself to give the output. Quantum fields interior to the BH can be entangled with fields outside. Consequently it is possible to solve hard problems with black holes.

        You might be interested in my paper . I address this issue from a different perspective.

        Cheers LC

          Copied from my essay blog site

          The (Closed Timelike Curve) CTC quantum paths I discussed yesterday are not something I entirely understand. It is I think likely that these CTCs are entirely contained inside event horizons of black holes. I doubt these exist in spacetime we causally interact with. Of course I might be wrong, but time travel seems to pose troubles that I doubt exist.

          Though CTCs exist inside black holes quantum states in the exterior that are entangled with interior states will serve as a quantum computer. The closed paths interior to black holes will permit second order λ-calculus and computation of NP hard problems in P time. States exterior to the black hole will compute them as well. Of course there is a bit of a problem, for while this entanglement exists to properly read the output a classical key must be transmitted from the interior. That is a difficult question. The black hole quantum mechanically decays and this interior key does in effect escape. Whether or not the quantum information that escapes can be "used" as the key is unknown.

          Of course from a practical perspective I doubt that black holes will be used as quantum computers any time soon. Quark-gluon plasmas have quantum gravity amplitudes in the quantum gravity - quantum chromodynamics correspondence, and this physics may influence the types of scattering processes involved. So it is not likely this will be a practical technology.

          If you want to send material to me my address is lcrowell@swcp.com

          Cheers LC

          Hello Aaron - As promised, I read your essay and here is my comment. Score will follow. I agree with the comments above - your essay is fun to read and easy enough to follow. While there is the feasibility issue, and also the technical one of non-predictability, I'm also intrigued by the sociological issue. This is not necessarily a new point of discussion, since physical determinism and divine omniscience have similar attributes to the foreknowledge machine and they have been around for a long time. (See my blogpost on this topic: Time and Free Will. So here is the question - would a truly rational human, having in hand one of your foreknowledge machines, be inclined to give up the human struggle to make his or her own choices? Would they still be human?

          Much thanks and best of luck! - George Gantz (author: The Tip of the Spear)

            Hi Aaron,

            The concept of time-viewing is interesting! I like how it interacts with images from distant places/times. I went into the essay skeptical, since I don't think travelling back in time is likely to be possible, but I like your conceptual approach to "foreknowledge machines", which could just as well be implemented as very powerful computers.

            It is interesting to think that, assuming that humans wise enough to discriminate between desirable and undesirable outcomes are in charge, desirable outcomes would more often be fixed-points under foreknowledge, and that undesirable outcomes would more often not be fixed points, so whenever a foreknowledge machine did return a value, it would be more likely that we would see (and end up with) a desirable outcome. Again, I wasn't initially sure that this would really work, but it does seem right on closer inspection.

            My only complaint is my first one: my limited understanding of physics is that sending information backward in time isn't a reasonable possibility. We could build prediction machines of some kind, but making them powerful enough to serve as foreknowledge machines with long-range abilities doesn't sound like a likely possibility (or, if we could, then we could also build other machines that would make a much better difference).

            Overall, though, interesting essay!

              Let me tell you a story.

              A Foreknowledge machine was built in a secret location and its existence announced to a stunned world. Suitably white-haired and bespectacled wise men were trotted out in front of TV cameras to explain how powerful security protocols and AI censors had been put in place to only allow the prediction (or non-confirmation) of positive outcomes. Politicians backed up their technical assurances with organization charts detailing an intricate oversight bureaucracy. Top military brass explained that the technology was classified to prevent would-be terrorists from using it to predict successful attacks. As further assurance against the possibility of abuse, the wise men pointed out that only a superpower could afford the astronomical amounts of energy needed to create significant CTCs. No would-be terrorist would be able to run one of these things in his cellar, even if he somehow managed to get his hands on the blueprints.

              In a gesture of international good will, several very positive predictions pertaining to other countries, including historically antagonistic ones, were presented, ranging from six months to five years into the future. A sceptical and, initially, even frightened world resolved to check the outcome of the first batch of predictions half a year down the road.

              They all came true.

              Then the one-year predictions were fully confirmed. Then the two-year ones. By then, nobody was even holding out for the five-year check any longer; they were all too busy dreaming up wonderful predictions to submit for consideration by the rapidly swelling oversight bureaucracy. The power to select predictions for confirmation by the Machine quickly became the most sought-after perk among politicians of all stripes. And for good reason: swelling Machine-related government "business" and ensuing scandals aside, all was not only well, but better than ever. Time and again, wonderful visions were submitted to the Machine and confirmed to be part of the future, setting the plans in motion which, inevitably, led to their realization. Humanity, so it seemed, had entered a true Golden Age.

              Until one day, the predictions stopped.

              Not because the Machine stopped. Not because of technical problems. Everything was in order, the giant staff dedicated to operating the Machine made sure of that. They checked and rechecked absolutely everything over and over again. It was just that every single scenario submitted to the Machine was now being returned as not confirmed.

              Initially they shrugged it off. A fluke, they said. Given the amount of scenarios submitted, a bad run was bound to happen at some point. Soon everything would be back to normal.

              But it didn't. As time dragged on, old predictions already in the pipeline kept coming true like clockwork. Six months, one year, two years. But all new submissions came back as not confirmed.

              After three years there was no denying it any longer. Something was terribly wrong, not with the Machine, but with the future. A probe was initiated to find out exactly where. A sequence of simple predictions so trivial they would never have made it through the usual selection process was submitted, spaced in time according to a simple golden mean algorithm. The result was incontrovertible: all predictions, even the most trivial, failed after The Date. Although they certainly tried, this was something not even the mighty security apparatus surrounding the Machine could keep under wraps. Soon the whole world was talking of nothing but The Date.

              The Date. The day beyond which nothing good would happen. For all practical purposes, the end of the world.

              Religion bounced back from an all-time low to become more popular than ever. Preachers were the new rock stars. Scientists appeared in heated televised debates on how the world would end, waving their new popular tomes, fresh off the printing presses, at each other. Asteroid impact, one said. Black hole, countered another. Alien invasion, opined a third. Antibiotic-resistant, airborne pandemic, suggested a particularly pedestrian one. Financial markets crashed.

              When paparazzi caught a giggling President lying on his back on the White House lawn, dressed in an old "No Future" T-shirt and smoking a haphazardly hand-rolled cigarette, it was all over. People stopped going to work, then stopped leaving their houses altogether. Store shelves gaped empty as the intricate supply chain which had supported industrial civilization collapsed. Gangs formed, looted what was left to loot, but mostly concentrated on killing each other off. Suicide rates shot through the roof.

              When The Date finally rolled along, there was nobody left to notice.

              Ten thousand years later, give or take a few millennia, an alien probe flying by the solar system snapped a sequence of photos showing the ruins of Earth's giant cities and the still perfectly preserved Machine on the far side of the moon. The probe's AI was only sophisticated enough to recognize and document the remnants of a planetary-scale technological society, but the electronic archivist at the receiving end of its data stream had no problem recognizing the signs. It had seen the same pattern many times before.

              Earth was filed under "Killed by self-fulfilling prophecy".

                Dear Aron,

                I like your essay, it is thought-provoking and also fun reading. I never had this point of view but why not. I like also the 3 types of machines.

                My own work (exotic smoothness and cosmology) uncovered the mysteries of CTC's, I was unable to avoid them in my theory, but maybe you point to an interesting solution where I have to think about.

                In particular you carefully discuss the problems of time travel (also possible avoidance of paradoxa).

                For more comments I have to dig deeper.

                Best Torsten

                PS: I like it so much to give score 8!

                  Hi Aaron,

                  I have read your essay for a second time.

                  The kind of foreknowledge machine that you have said can be made just shows all of the possible outcomes. Isn't that like a chess player can look ahead and compare the outcomes of different moves by visualization. Perhaps our decision making/steering, is reliant upon us not weighing up myriad possibilities but only considering a limited range of possibilities. Important if urgent decisions are needed or the consequences are of little importance whatever choice is made.

                  Is the machine's accuracy outweighed by the information overload as all possibilities are given? Or is its value in allowing us not to think about consequences of actions but to allow a machine to do that for us?Isn't thinking and even making mistakes part of what makes us human? For usefulness there would need to be probabilities assigned to each foreseen outcome. That may be useful for accurate risk assessments. (Just me thinking aloud.)

                  There is a good example of the 'Cassandra type' machine in the film 'Paycheck', writer Philip K Dick, directed John Woo, 2003 with dire consequences of self fulfilling prophesy writ large. I don't believe in time travel, it is incompatible with my way of thinking about the universe and physics.Interesting to hear you views and the references to work overcoming the temporal paradoxes.

                  Regards Georgina. I will be voting when I am ready to do so. I'd like time to digest all that I have read.