Seeing into the future

[Mr Spinkles]

I was in the study room earlier doing some reading, when my mind began wandering. I was thinking.....what if, hypothetically, you could create a computer program--one that took all the properties and relationships in our universe into account--that could model our universe in every detail? Suppose you could use this program to see everything that has happened in the past, and everything that will happen in the future.

Upon considering this, I wondered, what if I saw my own future with this program? I think I would be tempted to do something different than what it said I would do, just for the thrill of messing with the space-time continuum or something . So for example, if the program has me drinking milk at midnight tonight, I would drink orange juice at midnight tonight, and if it shows me drinking orange juice, I will drink milk.

This presents something of a paradox. The program is supposed to show the future....but at the same time, the program alters the future (e.g. by showing me doing one thing in the future, it causes me to do another thing). More on this in a moment.

Things get really interesting if you imagine what it would be like to view the present. Suppose the program appeared on my computer screen, with "time = present". I would see myself on my computer screen, viewing yet another computer screen on which another me is viewing yet another screen, and on and on for presumably infinity....kind of like the effect you see when you are between two mirrors facing each other.

Now let's say I reach for the dial to move time in the program forward....I would see all the images of "me" on the screen reach simultaneously for their own dials to move their own "programs" forward in time. Now I turn the dial to midnight, tonight, and the program shows me sitting in front of my computer screen drinking milk (and because of this, I have decided that when midnight comes around I will drink OJ). However, in the program, it also shows my computer screen on which another "program" is running.....what would I see on this program?

After some consideration, I think that on the program running inside the program, I would see yet another "me" sitting in front of yet another computer screen running yet another program...only this time, it would show me drinking OJ! The computer screen in front of the "me" drinking OJ would show yet another "me" drinking milk, and then OJ, and then milk...and on and on (like the aforementioned mirror effect).

This could even be extrapolated to a million other things....for example, let's say I decided that if the program showed the future "me" drinking milk at midnight, the "real" me would drink OJ, and if it showed OJ I would drink soda, and if it showed soda I would drink milk. In that case, I would see the same mirror effect from before, only this time, I would see the pattern: milk, OJ, soda, milk, OJ, soda.....

Fascinating, no?

I actually have some more things to say about this, but for now I'll stop....I've probably weirded you people out enough for one night.

Tell me what you think would happen if such a program were reality?

 

[Lightkeeper]

Are you sure you aren't drinking more than Orange Juice?:biglaugh: Some people believe that we exist on more than one plane. Somewhere else in the Universe there are other yous living your life. Your program sounds like a house of mirrors. If the program shows you drinking milk in the future, how can you change it? If you can change it your program has a defect in it because if isn't really showing the future, it's showing a possibility.

 

[Unedited]

Hmm. Wasn't there a movie that had something like this in it? With Ben Affleck.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Some people believe that we exist on more than one plane. Somewhere else in the Universe there are other yous living your life. Your program sounds like a house of mirrors. If the program shows you drinking milk in the future, how can you change it? If you can change it your program has a defect in it because if isn't really showing the future, it's showing a possibility.

Look more closely, Lightkeeper: I think that on the program running inside the program, I would see yet another "me" sitting in front of yet another computer screen running yet another program...only this time, it would show me drinking OJ! The computer screen in front of the "me" drinking OJ would show yet another "me" drinking milk, and then OJ, and then milk...and on and on (like the aforementioned mirror effect).

In this case, only half of the "Me's " depicted in the "hall of mirrors" are drinking OJ, and...but the other half are drinking milk, which is my future. So the program does, ultimately, show my future....though it is depicted in programs within programs.

I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I think that if I decided "well, whatever the program says I'm going to do at midnight tonight, I'll just do something else" the "hall of mirrors" would show me doing every possible thing there is for me to do.

Does any of this make sense, or am I just crazy?

 

[No*s]

Well such a program would be impossible is my first response, but I like really wierd things, so I go further .

Personally, I don't see it that way (obviously). The computer could calculate what it expects you to do within a probability. I don't believe that we have totally freewill, but I do believe it is there. The computer could then extrapolate a set of probabilities on what you would do. It could not predict exactly. I suspect the computer wouldn't show a series of interchanging milk/orange juice images, but a descending series of images with a set of decreasing probabilites. Perhaps it shows you drinking milk in one, and in the next orange juice, and in the next going to the store for coke, and so on and so forth. Of course, the last one would be you becoming a theist (sorry had to throw that one in ).

Naturally in calcuating this, it calculates the probability of your viewing it and thus how that would affect you. As a result, even your obstinate refusal to obey would have to be factored in, and it may try and select something that it has calculated would entice you, and thus decrease entropy in its calculations.

Now I've contributed to the sophistry

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I suspect the computer wouldn't show a series of interchanging milk/orange juice images, but a descending series of images with a set of decreasing probabilites. Perhaps it shows you drinking milk in one, and in the next orange juice, and in the next going to the store for coke, and so on and so forth. Of course, the last one would be you becoming a theist (sorry had to throw that one in

).

:biglaugh:

Personally, I don't see it that way (obviously). The computer could calculate what it expects you to do within a probability. I don't believe that we have totally freewill, but I do believe it is there. The computer could then extrapolate a set of probabilities on what you would do. It could not predict exactly.

Why could it not predict exactly? If the exact position of every particle, the exact charge of every electron, the exact wavelength of every photon, etc. were taken into account, and if all the other things we don't currently know about were also taken into account (quantum gravity? multiple dimensions?), why would it not be able to predict exactly what will happen? I might agree with you if your reasoning has something to do with the random nature of quantum physics...but I think your problem here has to do with free will.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

On a sidenote...would you agree with my "hall of mirrors" assessment if, instead of a computer program, it was some magical crystal ball that showed the future? (This is all hypothetical, of course.)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One more question: why would such a program be impossible? I'm not saying it is possible...I would just like to hear your reasoning.

Assuming that we could discover that the universe is governed by a few, relatively simple relationships, and if there were great advances made in quantum computers....I suppose you would have to somehow find a way to represent all the information contained in the universe with fewer bits than there are electrons in existence....or something.....anyway, let's hear your reasoning.

 

[jimbob]

Hmm. Wasn't there a movie that had something like this in it? With Ben Affleck.

Yaa, i think so. i remember it too. Ummm, darn, can't think of the name... um......... grrr.... oh well. Sorry can't remember.

 

[No*s]

Why could it not predict exactly? If the exact position of every particle, the exact charge of every electron, the exact wavelength of every photon, etc. were taken into account, and if all the other things we don't currently know about were also taken into account (quantum gravity? multiple dimensions?), why would it not be able to predict exactly what will happen? I might agree with you if your reasoning has something to do with the random nature of quantum physics...but I think your problem here has to do with free will.

For me, we both know that I believe in freewill . I don't believe in absolute freewill, but I do believe in it. That's something I take with me in evaluating a situation like that. What little I know of quantum mechanics would also produce a similar effect, except freewill.

Of course, there are a couple of problems here. First the machine can't use its capacities to calculate anything without your being able to defy it. It then must calculate your defiance, but it also cannot predict accurately. It's a paradox just like Zeno's about how long it takes the hare to catch up with the tortoise in the lead (an infinite amount of time). However, when time reaches zero and you do something, none of the programs end up right. They are always going to be 50% or less accurate. You are able to firmly defy or even accept their conclusions. This capacity for defiance is one of the arguments for freewill .

 

[No*s]

One more question: why would such a program be impossible? I'm not saying it is possible...I would just like to hear your reasoning.

Assuming that we could discover that the universe is governed by a few, relatively simple relationships, and if there were great advances made in quantum computers....I suppose you would have to somehow find a way to represent all the information contained in the universe with fewer bits than there are electrons in existence....or something.....anyway, let's hear your reasoning.

It's a recursive loop. If you want to lock up your computer put in a program that loops recursively and increases the value of the same variable indefinately. It will eventually use up enough processing power and/or memory to lock the machine up.

In order to calculate what you will do, it must calculate how you will respond to it. At that moment the sum totality of the computer becomes a variable. All the electrons used for calculation become a variable. These electrons also represent its maximum capacity for storage and calculation. The variable then grows larger than the machines capacity to calculate. The machine is, thus, a physical impossibility.

On a sidenote...would you agree with my "hall of mirrors" assessment if, instead of a computer program, it was some magical crystal ball that showed the future? (This is all hypothetical, of course.)

No, I wouldn't even then . The very act of seeing it allows you to defy it. In so doing, the mirrors could never portray things accurately. They, also, would have to work on probability or see be able to see the breadth of time as a whole and I have no way to even begin to comprehend that perspective, much less evaluate it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, I wouldn't even then

. The very act of seeing it allows you to defy it.

Yes, but that does not demonstrate free will: it only demonstrates that the existence of the crystal ball is part of the equation in figuring out the outcome. You could build a simple machine that displays a red or green light, and program it to display red if the crystal ball shows it displaying green in the future, and vice-versa. Is the machine truly "defying" the crystal ball in an act of free will, or simply obeying its instructions according to the input from its environment?

 

[meogi]

Spinks, the only thing I see wrong with your mirror assessment is that the change from 'time = present' to 'time = present + x' is that I don't see the program adjusting for the its own intuition (e.g. the switching back and forth of possible outcomes).

But assuming it does! You have to remember that when you make it 'time = present + x' that you're not going to be seeing yourself watching yourself drinking a glass of OJ. Simply because of the fact that if you were watching yourself drinking the OJ, you wouldn't be able to be watching yourself watching yourself drink said OJ. Where's the point in time where you switch from watching yourself watching yourself to when you're just watching yourself in the future? And wouldn't the 'time = present + x' also apply to the streams inside? Like, at depth 4 it'd be 'time = present + 5x' that the person would be watching... so there would be no infinte loops, asside from 'time = present.'

This is so hard to explain/think about... I hate you. :bonk:

P.S. - The mirror effect is done coolest by setting up a recorder playing itself watching the TV. Insta-infinte loop that you can see.

[edit] Oh, and what if the machine just works perfectly and you can't change the prediction... like you're thinking about it all day, and it finally gets to midnight and you're like, "Ha! Stupid program, I'll show you!" and you go to the fridge to ONLY find OJ, and then you just go, "Bah, meh, guess OJ works." So you just end up drinking the OJ anyway. (Yea, you could just not drink anything... but you were thirsty...)

And would you go insane trying to trick the program!? Of course, I do agree that it wouldn't be possible to calculate free will... and I don't believe things have purpose anyway, free will being the best evidence for that.

 

[Lightkeeper]

The best thing is to see our reflection in our own eyes as we really, we might better be able to predict our future and have more control over it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

An infinite supply of Spinkles??? Hmnnn, now THAT'S a scary thought!

As for the program it has already been made and the answer is 42.

But the problem is that you are confusing an image with reality. Woody Allen did a play that was in a play, that was in a play.

Even using your "mirror" to infinity, you have to remember that every other image is reversed.

 

[No*s]

Yes, but that does not demonstrate free will: it only demonstrates that the existence of the crystal ball is part of the equation in figuring out the outcome. You could build a simple machine that displays a red or green light, and program it to display red if the crystal ball shows it displaying green in the future, and vice-versa. Is the machine truly "defying" the crystal ball in an act of free will, or simply obeying its instructions according to the input from its environment?

I cans see how you'd look at it that way, but we're a good bit more complicated than a traffic light. The machine that displays a red or green light can only do so because it is hardwired to do so. If a given circuit is closed, then the light changes. Heck, the most random machines get right now to my knowledge is complicated "random" number algorighms. All they really are is complicated mathematical formulas that take a number seed and produce something sufficiently random for us.

In your circumstance, the machine is showing you something, and you choose to defy it. It is also well within the human capacity to simply follow through, and that in itself could be defiance of the program. Either case is defiance.

Further, unlike the machine parallel you made, I have urges, instincts, and desires. They are very strong, and I can deny them. I can choose to do something I don't want to do and deny what I want to do. I can deny my instinct as well. I'm 26 years old and still a virgin, and I've had oppertunity and desire. No machine has ever defied its own programming and hardwired tendencies, but we do.

So, no, I think your scenario still can illustrate the capacity for freewill. It does demonstrate the impossibility of our predicting the future with our machines and tools. I'm sure we can agree on that

 

[sillygeezer10]

Surrealo! What If I can go to Paris but I land in a other place called Scololololo? But I go to it, this place look like Paris but the name is different but my other egos go to Paris but the real one is in Scololololo. this is physically and mentally impossible.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Further, unlike the machine parallel you made, I have urges, instincts, and desires. They are very strong, and I can deny them.

I disagree. I think it would be more accurate to say that we are a complex organism that can have many conflicting urges, instincts, and desires, and that we act according to which ones are strongest. In the case of those who are celibate, it's not so much a matter of some supernatural agent "denying" sexual urges as it is a matter of religious memes and altruistic urges overcoming sexual ones.

 

[No*s]

I disagree. I think it would be more accurate to say that we are a complex organism that can have many conflicting urges, instincts, and desires, and that we act according to which ones are strongest. In the case of those who are celibate, it's not so much a matter of some supernatural agent "denying" sexual urges as it is a matter of religious memes and altruistic urges overcoming sexual ones.

I dont' think that's the case. A machine doesn't contradict itself the same way we can. It analyzes and calculates variables until it reaches its ultimate conclusion. I cannot see how conflicting urges, desires, and will can reflect the processes of a machine. The machine is harmonious, whereas we aren't.

However at this point, I feel we're about to start banging our head into a wall

 

[Scuba Pete]

I agree with Spinks.

As a shaman once put it, right and wrong are like two dogs fighting inside of you. The one you feed will win for it will be the strongest.