5) I will have to think about how this works more carefully, since I'm not sure I understand how this would work.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay. My ebook on Amazon will help a lot in this effort, it is far more detailed than my FQXi offering.

6) It will be interesting to see who's right. I agree that in some ways technology develops exponentially--if that's what you're suggesting--but I also think that qualitative advances become exponentially harder to achieve in some areas. Projects that require infrastructure or use high energies can be particularly slow. I am afraid at this point we may not even have controlled fusion in 20 years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As always, time will tell.

7) You seem to be using distinguishing prediction from foreknowledge in a technical way that wasn't clear to me when I first read your essay. But in any case this is where I think I most strongly disagree with you. A viewing technology that is sometimes wrong can still be tremendously useful. It won't be useful--and may even be harmful--in the specific case where it is wrong. But on balance--if the error rate is low and roughly known--it can be very valuable. Consider diagnostic tests. These routinely produce both false negatives and false positives. But if the error rate is low enough they are still an invaluable tool of medicine. Our actual telescopes inevitably distort images, but nevertheless remain useful to us. I doubt that any machine can run without producing errors. We should certainly seek to minimize observational errors. But we can live with some. In fact, I think we have to.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a topic concerning which I sense we are approaching an accord. I very much appreciate your exceptionally clear thoughts and questions.

You raise a vital point above, that if a future-viewing machine were to show an incorrect future, the result could be harmful. This is very true and important. Now, if viewer foreknowledge is to be a category of foreknowledge at all, it must be distinguished by being definite and 100% correct. This is because, a future viewer does not generate any kind of prediction or approximation, it provides a direct image. Now, whatever a future viewer may image is 100% whatever it happens to be (in its own time). So, how could an image of that thing depict something else, even something which only differs from the original by 1%?

Here we come to an issue that will serve to clarify. Viewer foreknowledge of an event could be repeatedly received from all angles, and from very close up. One should be able to count the number of pores on someone's nose in viewer foreknowledge--its resolution could even potentially be extended much more. How could such a kind of technology sometimes be wrong? If viewer foreknowledge were ever wrong, then it would have to be systematically wrong. However, how could it be systematically wrong, if it is just a direct image that can be tremendously zoomed in according to the operator's whim?

You mention diagnostic tests. Yet, I think you now see that what I am proposing is not a test of the future: viewer foreknowledge is full access to the future, as many times as one wishes to see, and with enough detail to satisfy anyone that it is genuine. Yes, it may be a fantasy, but this is the kind of technology I have in mind.

As before, Robert, thanks for your insights and questions. I'd like to know how your thoughts are evolving on these topics when you find the time. All the best!

Aaron

Dear Aaron,

Your name came to limelight by your invitation on my wall. I have replied your comments on rating issue wrote about. Since you will revisit the essay it is needless to paste it here again! Please kindly read it.

About your essay, I can see that you have a concept. And I do commend you for that instinct. I have also rated you!

I want you to read mine STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM See the link here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

I anticipate your comments and rating as well.

Wishing you the best in this competition.

Regards

Gbenga

Hi Christian,

Glad you enjoyed my work. I look forward to reading yours soon.

Thanks for putting your questions and comments in a numbered list, so here I go point by point:

1) "Displaying for its operator every possible future, but could not show which one will occur" is similar to the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. This should be the Bohr's point of view, while the Cassandra machines should represent Einstein's point of view. I think you suggest a third, intermediate point of view. Something like "a deterministic quantum mechanics".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's a cool observation. Yes, some kind of deterministic quantum mechanics is indeed the most attractive kind of interpretation of quantum mechanics in my opinion. My favorite paper about quantum interpretation is called "Quantum mechanics of measurement" by N.J. Cerf and C. Adami (1997). I've gotten something new and valuable every time I've read it, but I would probably need a Ph.D. in physics to be able to understand all of it.

2) I like your statement that "One must realize that we are still at a very early stage of science and technology". In science we need both humility and optimism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, I'm glad you like it. Every generation seems to fancy themselves as somehow finally being at the pinnacle of progress, and every generation which believes such a thing is wrong.

3) Don't you think that it is, in a certain sense, a full circle that a case wherein an individual or group helps to bring certain future outcomes to fruition, based upon what has been learned in viewer foreknowledge?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, that's the (self-consistent) nature of it.

4) What is the difference between "unmistakable viewer foreknowledge" and "effectively unmistakable viewer foreknowledge"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Glad you asked. Technical note six offers a number of methods that FM operators might use to confirm instances of viewer foreknowledge, as such. So, "effectively unmistakable viewer foreknowledge" simply refers to viewer foreknowledge that can only be recognized as such after these techniques are used. Since, it is unmistakable in the end, I thought a good term would be effectively unmistakable. This term of convenience would not have been necessary if there was no length restriction for the essay--in that case, technical note six would have been part of the text.

5) What is called "second-time-around fallacy" in philosophy is called "chronology protection conjecture" in physics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, there is a definite distinction between the two. From Wikipedia: "The chronology protection conjecture is a conjecture by the physicist Professor Stephen Hawking that the laws of physics are such as to prevent time travel on all but sub-microscopic scales." However, the second-time-around fallacy essentially states that it is a fallacy to imagine that the past can be altered in a do-over initiated by the visit of a time traveler. The second-time-around fallacy is perfectly consistent with widespread use of pastward time travel, because time travel does not involve even the possibility of making changes to the past. That's why, on page 6, I refer to "time travel paradoxes" as a misnomer. They should henceforward be called "past alteration paradoxes," since the paradoxical results that have mistakenly been associated with time travel could only emerge from changes to the past, yet genuine time travel would strictly forbid any changes to the past whatsoever.

6) When Kurt Gödel have shown that closed timelike curves could in principle exist in general relativity, Einstein claimed that "such a potential existence gives me shivers running down my spine"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That seems like an appropriate response to what was, in my opinion, one of the most important scientific developments of the 20th Century.

7) On one hand, the idea that the future will steer humanity looks intriguing. On the other and, don't you think that removing the element of surprise could mean that life will become bore? See also point 3).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When foreknowledge machine technology is well-understood and has long been applied for maximum effect, if such a day ever comes, I really don't think it will be boring to know that one's children will grow up in a world that will be safe all their lives, without war, systematic oppression, corruption, or famine. To my way of thinking, that sounds like the opposite of boring.

Christian, thanks very much for your comments and questions. We could certainly do this again, if you should find that you have more.

Warmly,

Aaron

Dear Aaron,

Thanks for your kind clarifications. It is my pleasure discussing with you. Let us keep in touch then.

Cheers, Ch.

Hi Aaron,

I've given you that rating you deserve. Haven't had time yet to get your book from Amazon. I keep getting lots of ideas which I turn into articles at my page on vixra.org. My computer screen turned pink 6 months ago, and is extremely hard to read now, so I hope your book is available in printed form.

Regards,

Rodney

  • [deleted]

  • Post #64

Dear Feeney,

You see? I told you you'll be bombarded. Yours is a bold essay.

What I personally find intriguing (even frustrating) is that without having before set a camera therein we cannot just walk into a room and decide to view say its past 1 hour or 30 minutes etc. Feeney, once we can get a method to zoom in and out of space-time then future and past viewing will become one. In fact I wager that past viewing in this sense will be far more useful because it will revolutionize crime investigation, privacy, etc.

Now to the practical side, isn't a conservation law actually kind of a natural future knowledge "machine"?

In other words, to adopt a different "conservation law" (universal constant) is to adopt a different observer/space-time.

I take this approach , so you can understand that our thesis somehow merge, namely: man will be then the "space-time" i.e. the de facto unit for measuring/predicting space and time.

I appreciate your statement that: "...not only will viewer foreknowledge eliminate the uncertainty and deception that warfare requires for its existence, it will also gradually eliminate the concept of collective enemies."

In your own words I'll say, your essay was very good and I learnt a lot!

Chidi

Was me above.

and, does this computer have mind of it own? Keeps logging me out!

Chidi

  • [deleted]

  • Post #66

Dear Aaron!

I read your essay. It is well written, and yes theoretically or factually there may be already 'future viewing machines' in operation.

However, there are some crucial questions worth considering applying such kind of 'machines'.

1. Everything start there - we all are able to control at least estimate the possible outcomes of our own thoughts, before inventing any kind of technology.

2. Is there a necessity to establish over us a sophisticated intelligence who controls our thoughts?

3. As a human can't you enjoy when happening getting some surprise?

As per my consideration, because every past experience action, event based on thoughts and the thoughts can be changed, so the past unfortunately can't be fixed also the future can't be predicted unambiguously. Everything is tested in a present moment of thinkers' actual focus but based on their individual experiences and controlling or not their own thoughts, and that is what very difficult to predict using only a human mind.

I offer you some links for your further reading:

How to time travel

Rumored Technology

Paycheck - film

Fred Allan Wolf - material

Damien Broderick Living in the future right now

Kind regards,

Valeria

Hi Luca,

Yes, I have you on my spreadsheet. My last final exam in my technical program is on Friday. After that, I will finally have the leisure to read and rate essays. All the best!

Aaron

Good luck the with the exam ... and the contest.

Luca

Dear Aaron,

You have requested me reading your essay, make comment and rate you which I have done, but you promised to reciprocate the same but I am yet to see you do all these. STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM use this direct link http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

Expect you you.

Wishing you the best as said earlier.

Regards

Gbenga

    Dear Aaron,

    I like your idea of the foreknowledge machines. Excellent imagination. I rated your unique essay a full score 10.

    Good luck!

    Leo KoGuan

    Hi Gbenga,

    Yes, I'm looking forward to it. My technical program is done tomorrow, and then I can devote time to reading all the wonderful essays here, including yours. I will post to your page soon.

    Aaron

    Lots of interesting stuff to discuss here. I don't have as much time as I would like now, but two quick points occur to me:

    2) Because the laws of physics basically work the same forward as backward, photons traveling forward through time are equivalent to photons traveling backward through time in the other direction. In a sense it's not clear that photons travel through time at all, since the interval along the path of a photon is zero. We can think of the photons that leave a flashlight just as well as photons that arrive at the bulb from the future. So I think we need another explanation for the arrow of time--for, specifically, why we appear to get useful information only from photons arriving from the past--beside the finite speed of light.

    3) Observing the arrival of radiation from a gamma-ray burst 20 years in the future requires information about the burst to travel from the source to us in the present day faster than the speed of light in apparent violation of general relativity. Using the same principle we could send a message faster than the speed of light by transmitting it to the future of a receiver with a foreknowledge machine. Maybe this is possible, but it suggests that foreknowledge machines depend on the existence of exotic spacetimes, which makes me skeptical.

    Good luck on your exam--and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my own essay!

    Robert

    Aaron,

    It took me a minute to grasp that viewing the future in your context is not the same as predicting events. So I see we share a philosophy about the relativity of time. The nature of predictability, in fact, was the subject of my last year's FQXi essay.

    You should find that your modulo 4 counting system exactly corresponds to the Bell-Aspect interpretation of quantum mechanics; there is no way in principle to beat the nonlocality of a programmed observation. The space simply isn't big enough.

    The added degree of freedom imparted, however, both by the Everett hypothesis and a simple point at infinity in a 4-dimension spacetime, does allow local-global mapping of events continuously to themselves, with a deterministic result that is as much future as it is present. That is, the complete measure of events on a closed [0,1] interval, locally, corresponds in a self-similar way to the global half open interval [0,1).

    Engaging essay, and I wish you well with it.

    Best,

    Tom

      Dear Aaron,

      I hope that I am still on your spreadsheet.

      In my post of may 12 I sent you my idea of "consciouss time travel" but the illustration did not come along, so here it is again.

      If you are interested in the whole artiocle I will sent it to your private mail,

      mine is

      wilhelmus.d@orange.fr

      best regards

      WilhelmusAttachment #1: figure_4_ENM_HOPPER.jpg

      Hi Robert,

      I agree, we've been having an interesting discussion. I will get right to replying:

      2) Because the laws of physics basically work the same forward as backward, photons traveling forward through time are equivalent to photons traveling backward through time in the other direction. In a sense it's not clear that photons travel through time at all, since the interval along the path of a photon is zero. We can think of the photons that leave a flashlight just as well as photons that arrive at the bulb from the future. So I think we need another explanation for the arrow of time--for, specifically, why we appear to get useful information only from photons arriving from the past--beside the finite speed of light.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      This is an excellent point. I have not seen this point being raised in discussions of the arrow of time. However, I can see no reason why photons from the future would be compelled to interact with an eye or a camera, the way they can be conceived as converging upon a flashlight bulb. I think the answer to the why question you suggest comes down to a fundamental difference between emitters and absorbers.

      3) Observing the arrival of radiation from a gamma-ray burst 20 years in the future requires information about the burst to travel from the source to us in the present day faster than the speed of light in apparent violation of general relativity. Using the same principle we could send a message faster than the speed of light by transmitting it to the future of a receiver with a foreknowledge machine. Maybe this is possible, but it suggests that foreknowledge machines depend on the existence of exotic spacetimes, which makes me skeptical.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Why would we need such a complicated arrangement, if we merely want to transmit superluminal messages? Superluminal signals that penetrate Faraday cages were pioneered in the late 19th century by everyone-should-know-who, and other methods have been found by other researchers since then. This may come as something of a shock (a pun in this context), but I will be happy to provide you with references. It would be more convenient to do so over email. (Go to my ebook's page on amazon.com and hover over my name to link to my author page, where you will find my email address.)

      Now, I don't want to promote the idea that superluminal messages would violate relativity--this is not a simplistic area of science--there is a lot more mathematical leeway than that involved. Even superluminal travel would not necessarily violate relativity, as Miguel Alcubierre's work has so famously shown.

      Other researchers have discovered a totally different way to achieve superluminal travel without running afoul of Einstein's powerful dilemma, as I will also share with you. Believe it or not, there is more than one way around the seemingly unbreakable limitation which arises through the interaction of E=mc2 and f=ma.

      Again, it has been a pleasure. I look forward to continuing our discussion and expanding it over email. Also, I am nearing the end of your article, so I will be opening a new discussion with you shortly, on your page.

      Warmly,

      Aaron