There is a computer so powerful that it can read into atomic physics and predict the future on a macro scale. It shows the future.
A scientist walks up to the computer, and the computer shows him picking up a ball from a table.

Now. I am a staunch determinist. I believe he would have to pick up the ball. But it doesn't make much sense, does it?
If someone knows the future he has the ability to defy it. But if this computer is basing it's results on micro level calculations it should be unavoidable.

Therefore the stimuli that could cause the different choice is the computer. Does that mean the oracle cannot envision itself as stimulus?
surely not. Could it not see the resources being brought together for making it and what that would cause?


If a scientist looked into the computer and saw himself picking up a ball.
What would he do, and why?

That is, really, the paradox of time travel. If you can see the future, you can then correct it. Then the future really isn't the future.

However, I think that is only taking up to 4 dimensions into account. The 5th dimension allows for different possible futures. So, in reality, the oracle could just be showing you what strikes it as the most likely outcome in the future.

However, that very act changes the likelihood of that future happening.

Hmm.

I don't think how the human mind operates and makes decisions has anything to do with particle physics.

Also, Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

But lets put science aside for the moment for argument's sake.



Now. I am a staunch determinist. I believe he would have to pick up the ball. But it doesn't make much sense, does it?
If someone knows the future he has the ability to defy it. But if this computer is basing it's results on micro level calculations it should be unavoidable.


Actually, we can't put science aside, because your reasoning is bunk. We can't predict macro occurrences based on quantum events. Well, we can to a certain extent, but in no way can we predict "the future".

But lets say this computer doesn't deal in particle physics at all. Lets say it can analyze a person's brain, and reduce it to a giant electronic schematic, a set of rules or patterns that the brain MUST follow; that if you put A, B, and C into electronic-schematic-brain, then you will get X, Y, Z as output.

My guess is that the computer would get stuck in some sort of infinite loop. It sees itself showing the image of a person picking up a ball, and knows that if the person sees this, he will not pick up the ball. Thus, the computer changes its prediction to "the person will not pick up the ball". At this point, the person may not even think about an object laying on a table, or he may pick it up. Only the computer knows. If the latter, then we start the process over again.

If we are going to reduce the brain into a set of inescapable laws, then this is just the sort of logical conundrum we are going to face.

Luckily, this is not how the universe operates.

Such a supercomputer is called the Laplace Demon.

Btw, the Heisenburg uncertainty principle has nothing to do with the deterministic nature of the Demon. The HUP has to do with knowing the exact velocity and the location at the same time. In fact, the resolution to the EPR paradox that violates HUP states that knowing the mechanism of "spooky action at a distance" will resolve HUP in the first place rendering it as a deterministic state.

...that is only taking up to 4 dimensions into account. The 5th dimension allows for different possible futures. So, in reality, the oracle could just be showing you what strikes it as the most likely outcome in the future.

...that very act changes the likelihood of that future happening.

I agree.

If a scientist looked into the computer and saw himself picking up a ball.
What would he do, and why?

TILT!

The 5th dimension allows for different possible futures. So, in reality, the oracle could just be showing you what strikes it as the most likely outcome in the future.

This really isn't telling the future at all than. All the computer is doing is viewing things in atleast a dimension as high as 5. If you were able to somehow view everything in the 5th dimenion, you would see all possible futures., but it wouldn't just be the future. You would experience yourself living out the possibly infinite number of different lifes you could, or will live.

So really their not predictions at all. Its just taking all the possible outcomes of your life and factoring every slight difference that could result in even the slightest change in your life. Even if we could somehow see things in the 5th dimension, we still would have to figure out the factors that make up whatever "reality" you would want to experience in the forth dimension.

However, if your already viewing things in the 5th dimension, I don't think your worried much about your fourth dimension.

...that very act changes the likelihood of that future happening.

This also has to be taken into account. Just the act of viewing the future could change it...

i don't see this as a paradox at all. if the future is calculated, then surely the results of the man seeing himself pick up the ball are already factored. he may decide on seeing the image that he will not do it, but that doesn't mean he won't.

the computer knows the man will see the image of himself preforming the task, and that will have consequences.

the effect of knowing the future cannot alter it, it has to be Incorporated. otherwise, it's not really predicting the future, rather than displaying a possibility.

however, i like how futurama summed it up, when bender was talking to god:
[Bender: So... do you know what I'm going to do before I do it?
God: Yes.
Bender: What if I do something different?
God: Then I don't know that.

If someone knows the future he has the ability to defy it.

If he has the ability to defy it, then he didn't know the future in the first place. If the future is known, then it plays out as we would experience a movie: a string of predetermined events that cannot be changed (that cannot be defied).

I don't think quantum mechanics has anything to do with it, b/c there is no evidence that any sort of probabilistic model percolates up to the atomic level.

Anyway, it is simply not possible. I've thought about this machine more than anyone I know and I concluded it is not even a possibility. It would have to factor itself in AT REAL TIME and because of the progression of time, this is logically impossible. Let's say this machine is printing out the future on a piece of paper (I know it's way too much to fit on paper, but for argument's sake...) now, as it is printing it out, it would have to also take into account it's very own printing mechanisms, but by the time it is printed out, it's movement was part of the past. I don't see how such a machine could get around taking itself into account. The only way I could see it is if it discounted itself and was placed where no being could ever reach it, even then it would only be a "future" given that itself isn't taken into account, plus no one could ever read its output of the future, which would render it useless.

Maybe it is something like an infinite regress or loop, even the machine thought out the future of the next 1,000 years before it began printing, it would have to think about what it is thinking about and this may end in a loop or would simply break the machine. I think the paradox is a fallacy of false dilemma. Yay determinism!

If he has the ability to defy it, then he didn't know the future in the first place. If the future is known, then it plays out as we would experience a movie: a string of predetermined events that cannot be changed (that cannot be defied).

Spot on.

If this supercomputer had factored in everything to determine this as the future then this is what would happen because part of the factors would be determining that the scientist would indeed see the future and thus it should alter what it (the supercomputer) shows to the scientist to make sure that this future does in fact happen, otherwise it's not showing the future...just a vague possibility that can be changed.

Basically if the scientist for any reason can change his "future" and not pick up the ball by the supercomputer showing him picking up the ball, then the supercomputer didn't factor in everything and thus didn't accurately predict the future making the machine itself conceptually impossible because of its inability to calculate its own interaction for an infinite time in the future.

If we had a closed system and the computer was outside of that system. Such as a closed room, and the computer's prediction for the future of that room was not shown to the people in the room. Then the computer doesn't have to take itself into account and the act of predicting the future won't change it. Making it possible?

If we had a closed system and the computer was outside of that system. Such as a closed room, and the computer's prediction for the future of that room was not shown to the people in the room. Then the computer doesn't have to take itself into account and the act of predicting the future won't change it. Making it possible?

Well what good does it do for us if the computers predictions was not shown to the people in the room. The whole idea of having the machine is being able to see it.

Instead of writing a calculus test I could sit in that room for a minute while the computer scans me and predicts my answers ;).

I think it could still be useful.

This reminds me of something my wife--who has been doing psychic readings professionally for over thirty years--once told me.

She used to do readings for herself quite regularly, then stopped, since it was much more interesting NOT knowing what was going to happen.

I can't really explain it, but it all makes sense to me.

My answer is simply this: The scientist picks up the ball. He may not immeadiatly, but at some time he will. He may even tell himself he never will, but he will eventually realize that he needs to pick it up.

I don't think how the human mind operates and makes decisions has anything to do with particle physics.

Also, Heisenberg uncertainty principle.



Wins. You can't predict the future on the "micro-scale" as PirateJoe said above the uncertainty principle forbids it, and if you don't know what that is, well...shit. Basically you can send wavelengths of any kind to a particle and measure its velocity, so while you can measure its velocity accuratley using smaller wave lengths you can't find its position; and vice versa with larger wave lengths and finding its position accuratley and not the velocity.

Wins. You can't predict the future on the "micro-scale" as PirateJoe said above the uncertainty principle forbids it, and if you don't know what that is, well...shit. Basically you can send wavelengths of any kind to a particle and measure its velocity, so while you can measure its velocity accuratley using smaller wave lengths you can't find its position; and vice versa with larger wave lengths and finding its position accuratley and not the velocity.

Again, isn't this a theory pertaining to sub-atomic particles? The same observed 'uncertainty' doesn't percolate up and so in non-sequitur to whether or not the machine can predict the future. The problem is the infinite circularity/time constraint of having to calculate itself into the equation.

That is, really, the paradox of time travel. If you can see the future, you can then correct it. Then the future really isn't the future.

However, I think that is only taking up to 4 dimensions into account. The 5th dimension allows for different possible futures. So, in reality, the oracle could just be showing you what strikes it as the most likely outcome in the future.

However, that very act changes the likelihood of that future happening.

Hmm.

well shit tha'ts common sense

Could someone post some links about this supercomputer?

Could someone post some links about this supercomputer?

I laughed hard.
I wish rep was still around... :)

This reminds me of something my wife--who has been doing psychic readings professionally for over thirty years--once told me.

She used to do readings for herself quite regularly, then stopped, since it was much more interesting NOT knowing what was going to happen.

It's the same as the supercomputer.
If she manages to see what's going to happen to her, she can avoid bad things, creating a paradox.
Say she sees she's going to be killed by a stray bullet in Worcestershire Street, at 11:00 AM the next day.
So, she cancells her shopping trip, thus avoiding her death. Then the cards were mistaken, because the "future" would have changed. Would she be able to trust her abilities then? If she didn't die that day, how does she know she was going to? How can she be sure about any of her predictions from now on?
The future is unpredictable, it's based on the free will of all the beings in the universe.
That stray bullet was shot by someone. That someone's free will affected the wife's future. So the future can't be seen for the same reason time travel is impossible.
In order to be able to time travel, for example, the past, present and future would have to be ocurring simultaneously, every single nanosecond, for the rest of eternity. Otherwise, you'd have to reverse or fast forward the entire existance.
Same with predictions.
Unless you believe in destiny, I think that accurately predicting the future based on calculations is impossible, just like the weather forecast. But if, by any chance, the scientist could, in fact, know he WILL pick up the ball, but decides he won't, he will have messed with the deepest laws of quantum, that keep the universe running, thus creating a giant paradox that will likely cause the multiverse to collapse. (farfetched? well, maybe :) )
That's my opinion, at least.

I don't think how the human mind operates and makes decisions has anything to do with particle physics.

Also, Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

But lets put science aside for the moment for argument's sake.




Actually, we can't put science aside, because your reasoning is bunk. We can't predict macro occurrences based on quantum events. Well, we can to a certain extent, but in no way can we predict "the future".

But lets say this computer doesn't deal in particle physics at all. Lets say it can analyze a person's brain, and reduce it to a giant electronic schematic, a set of rules or patterns that the brain MUST follow; that if you put A, B, and C into electronic-schematic-brain, then you will get X, Y, Z as output.

My guess is that the computer would get stuck in some sort of infinite loop. It sees itself showing the image of a person picking up a ball, and knows that if the person sees this, he will not pick up the ball. Thus, the computer changes its prediction to "the person will not pick up the ball". At this point, the person may not even think about an object laying on a table, or he may pick it up. Only the computer knows. If the latter, then we start the process over again.

If we are going to reduce the brain into a set of inescapable laws, then this is just the sort of logical conundrum we are going to face.

Luckily, this is not how the universe operates.



Actually it does in a way, the universe has laws and through those laws it does everything that it does thus if we know all the laws plus the variables we can apply those to a certain event and predict the outcome. Just like with the brain you were talking about.

But i think the variables will be near or even incalculable. Just look at quantum mechanics, you cannot with certainty predict an outcome you can just give an approximation of how likely it will be that that outcome will occur.


Or even if the machine were to work you would probably just see yourself standing at the machine because as long as it is showing the future the timeline will constantly split off into an infinite number of other timelines where every outcome had happend and because yours is the one that all of those originated from shows exactly that, which is the constant splitting of the timeline which would look like you standing infront of it because it can't show the events from the other timelines because it was build to show your future in your timeline which in turn leads back to showing the splitting.

Actually it does in a way, the universe has laws and through those laws it does everything that it does thus if we know all the laws plus the variables we can apply those to a certain event and predict the outcome. Just like with the brain you were talking about.

But i think the variables will be near or even incalculable. Just look at quantum mechanics, you cannot with certainty predict an outcome you can just give an approximation of how likely it will be that that outcome will occur.


Or even if the machine were to work you would probably just see yourself standing at the machine because as long as it is showing the future the timeline will constantly split off into an infinite number of other timelines where every outcome had happend and because yours is the one that all of those originated from shows exactly that, which is the constant splitting of the timeline which would look like you standing infront of it because it can't show the events from the other timelines because it was build to show your future in your timeline which in turn leads back to showing the splitting.

Yea thats another big problem with with the whole theory. There are an infinite number of timelines where you will do everything and anything possible. These timelines split and intersect constantly creating what we see as time, the change from moment to moment.

Even if the machine could account for all possible timelines you would have to figure out how to set that timeline in motion. Even if it were possible it would be bitch to have to make sure every little thing happened in order for that specific future to happen.

Can we not agree that we can predict the material universe WITHOUT quatum mechanics? We're not talking multiverse theory, we're talking about predicting the movements of atoms.

however, if you see yourself doing something in the future, and try to correct it, that may be playing to the calculation and you actually end up doing it,...
if you can understand what i mean
it knows you'll try to correct, and that is the outcome of the corrected path
my grammars as bad as like, whatever

Can we not agree that we can predict the material universe WITHOUT quatum mechanics? We're not talking multiverse theory, we're talking about predicting the movements of atoms.



No we can't because atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons which inturn consist of quarks and leptons, generally the science we use to describe the subatomic is infact quantum mechanics.

What i'm trying to say here is that you can't predict the movement of a certain proton without inevitably predicting the actual movement of the quarks it is made up of also.


Furthermore when talking about the atomic instead of the subatomic it isn't like the laws of quantum mechanics don't at all apply anymore.

No we can't because atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons which inturn consist of quarks and leptons, generally the science we use to describe the subatomic is infact quantum mechanics.

What i'm trying to say here is that you can't predict the movement of a certain proton without inevitably predicting the actual movement of the quarks it is made up of also.


Furthermore when talking about the atomic instead of the subatomic it isn't like the laws of quantum mechanics don't at all apply anymore.

Well it seems as they don't, since their is yet to be a consensus on any theory of everything. What I mean is, leave out all supposed sub-atomic theory and rely on solid atomic theory, can we not predict how every atom will move? If so, this is all we need to predict the future. We will end up with all the data on all the atoms in the universe, into the future. There is yet to be any evidence that this apparent probabilistic sub-atomic stuff percolates up to effect predictions at the atomic level.