Invent a test...

[Guest]

That would allow a person to predict the future to a third party person that doesn't cause the "prediction paradox #1" problem. It's a lot harder than you'd think.

Prediction paradox #1 is where, when the prediction is stated, the outcome of events changes such that, the original prediction never comes true. This includes affecting the future transmission of information back to the past.

[Affect - cause, influence. Effect - the outcome or symptom of something.]

Basic requirements to prevent "prediction paradox #1";
1) Future transmission back to the past has to be guaranteed regardless of outcome of events (that is, the transmission's reason for occurring must be independent of both the event that will happen and the person told of the prediction, such that, even if event didn't happen and the prediction was not told, the transmission would still occur).

2) The person told of the prediction (the 'predictee') is unable to influence the predicted unfolding events in any way, shape or form. This includes even if they are not told.

2.1) There cannot be any risk [100% elimination] of them interfering directly to the prediction as it can 'pollute' 'alternate' time-lines, preventing a successful conclusion. They can watch, so long as watching does not alter the events unfolding.

2.1 exp) The main reason, so they can't alter it to purposefully fail (predictee bias). Additionally they cannot affect anything is because, imagine in lots of alternate dimensions, one version of the predictee goes bad, acts out of character (accidentally, or on purpose), etc. If this is all the predictor can pick up, the experiment will fail, as the outcome won't occur (due to #1 occurring), and it may also cause alternate dimension 'bad' offshoots, causing further, hard to explain problems.

2.2) The predictee cannot affect the predictor in either case (of prediction told or not told), at any point before the future transmission occurs.

2.2 exp) The reason for this is, if the predictee can, an alternate dimension (or even current, which is more common) version of the predictee, may affect the predictor such that the future transmission never occurs. Thus causing #1.

3) The person who is telling the prediction must not affect the predicted unfolding events in any way shape or form (this is very hard - given they have to know them in order to transmit back, and the events cannot be the cause of the transmission).

3 exp) Firstly, because it means they can't 'set it up' before hand. Secondly, this means, in either instance of telling or not telling the prediction, the event will always occur. If the predictor influences the event when telling the prediction (for example, delays the start of the event by a few seconds, either by distracting or delaying it through the telling of the prediction, causing the butterfly effect and altering said outcome). The events cannot be the cause of the transmission, because if the events fail in any time-line, the transmission will never occur, and it will no longer be possible to predict.

I think that should cover all the necessary points required to prevent #1 from occurring. Although I may have to make additions in separate posts or clarify any confusion.

 

[Twighlight]

Prediction paradox #1 is where, when the prediction is stated, the outcome of events changes such that, the original prediction never comes true.

This is an impossible task.....for the following reasons :-

1) The prediction may not actually be correct. So how does one prevent something that isn't going to happen anyway from not happening ??

2) A person being told the prediction may be precisely the reason it comes true. You have no way of knowing.

3) You have absolutely no way of distinguishing between a prediction that was incorrect all along.....and one that is 'prevented from happening'.


Reason (3), in particular, makes the whole task meaningless. If I predict that aliens will land on the Whitehouse lawn at 2.30pm tomorrow.....and it fails to happen....well, that may be because I told you all, but it may just as well be because the prediction was baloney in the first place.

And frankly...it's ABSURD to go looking for other reasons why a prediction fails. Occam's razor dictates that the most plausible reason for failure, and the one that should be given weight above all other explanations, is that the prediction was always false.

I am reminded of some wise words by Carl Sagan...

"what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? "

 

[RainmanTime]

Reason (3), in particular, makes the whole task meaningless. If I predict that aliens will land on the Whitehouse lawn at 2.30pm tomorrow.....and it fails to happen....well, that may be because I told you all, but it may just as well be because the prediction was baloney in the first place.

And frankly...it's ABSURD to go looking for other reasons why a prediction fails. Occam's razor dictates that the most plausible reason for failure, and the one that should be given weight above all other explanations, is that the prediction was always false.

I am reminded of some wise words by Carl Sagan...

"what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? "

Absolutely, positively correct, Twilight. And this very type of reasoning is what was behind the work of Karl Popper, when he codified that, in order for some theory or prediction to be considered scientific, it must be capable of being falsified.

Anything that is so slippery that it can always avoid being falsified, is defacto NON-SCIENTIFIC. It is pseudoscientific, at best.

RMT

 

[hdrkid]

Hi Rusty:

I believe an earthquake is an event that would fit your criteria because prior knowledge will not stop it from occurring. Also, an asteroid impact would be difficult to prevent, although our military could try to deflect it away.

A time traveller from the future like John Titor might have knowledge of major events that will take place in the days to come. These could be used as evidence of time travel or at the very least being a precog.

 

[Twighlight]

I believe an earthquake is an event that would fit your criteria because prior knowledge will not stop it from occurring. Also, an asteroid impact would be difficult to prevent, although our military could try to deflect it away.

Actually no.....THE best test of prediction without influencing the event itself is one that is entirely possible and simple.

Supernovae regularly go off in distant galaxies.....and a few dozen or so are observed every year by astronomers. These are events that have effectively ALREADY HAPPENED.....but their light takes millions of years to reach us.

There is no way that predicting such an event is going to prevent it happening

Of course, the predictor would have to predict the exact galaxy ( with precise celestial co-ordinates......right ascension and declination ) out of millions, and the exact date and time.

Strange how there is no psychic person putting their neck on the line and making such predictions.......and none of our alleged time travellers can tell us any such details either, despite the fact that there are web sites detailing distant supernovae each year.

 

[Guest]

This is an impossible task.....for the following reasons :-

And now you can finally understand why it's such a challenge for me to prove.

If you work it through, you'll see elements of the grandfather paradox (although in slightly different forms).

There is a sort of way... which is encrypted references. Simply put, I'd write some numbers down referencing certains (with the neccessary information to interfere with that task omitted). As you saw in the other thread (2 and 1 respectively quote).

I suppose this thread is more a rhetorical question rather than a serious discussion so you'd see the limitations from my point of view.

is that the prediction was always false.

Or was it?

The problem is, your perspective is of a linear timeline. You remember titor said about divergence (although I don't associate myself with him at all) and alternate timelines?

Well, imagine this; in one timeline, you get hit by a car, and in another, I inform you of the car hitting event, BUT, as a result, you avoid roads and don't get hit. So you denounce me as lying on the prediction. THAT is a self-denying prediction paradox.

On a more simplified approach; take quantum suicide; you decide to commit suicide. But the issue is when? In one universe it's a second earlier. Another, it's 10 minutes later. If I say anything - or indeed, interrupt - it could never occur. I could talk you out of quantum suicide for ten months.

It's hard to explain. But I hope the analogys are clear enough. You have to admit... I AM consistent.

Anything that is so slippery that it can always avoid being falsified, is defacto NON-SCIENTIFIC.

Pause.

Interesting slur, and the test obviously hasn't been read throughly.

An observer is involved. The citereon are mentioned to avoid a self-denying paradox. Assuming all citereon can be met (which is very, very hard to do, but, isn't impossible, as you'll notice), the observer will end up with a prediction, and an event neither time-traveller or observer can alter. And thus it is falsifible on the basis the event doesn't occur as predicted.

That's all it is. As you know, events are intertwined (it's hard for either time-traveller or observer not to be involved in events unless a system almost like a one-way mirror was involved) and can easily be changed. Although you think they are linear. It's okay. It is linear. Just there happens to be multiple linear timelines. And you're only aware of the one...

I believe an earthquake is an event that would fit your criteria because prior knowledge will not stop it from occurring. Also, an asteroid impact would be difficult to prevent, although our military could try to deflect it away.

I always aimed for the doom-or-gloom events, but it doesn't work how I expect.

To put it in context; imagine you can only predict what you experience. You have to waste a life, come back, and this time, tell someone of the experience you had [alternately] before it occurs, and convince them you predicted it (the latter is the hardest, actually).

I'd have to go out, find myself an earthquake, experience it, send the information back of the experience. However, my experience only contains an earthquake, and images of perhaps some city or forest. No precise location. No precise time information is passed back, so I can't tell when. There is no guarentee of when I will receive it (from 3 seconds to 3 years before the event).

That and... earthquakes are predictable (even rainman has predicted them) and could get bumped off as coincidence or chance. So even if I gave say, power rating, location, unless I could provide a precise day, and time (how many of you, without looking, can quote your mother's mobile number verbatim... not many I bet? [unless of course you dial it frequently... in the same sense an event has to occur frequently and I have to be 'guarenteed' to experience it] Brain only holds 9 bits maximum...), it's useless at convincing. I'd be better if I tried conning...

Sounds like a cop-out. Sure. But there isn't a 'control'. I can't 'define' what is sent or received. Or when. Earthquakes don't convince people. Same for volcanos. If I predicted an extinct one would erupt though, that'd be pretty convincing. But I personally don't travel near extinct volcanos 'awaiting' the 'once-in-a-lifetime' experience of having it erupt on me. And even if I do, which do I visit? Money issues...

As for the asteroid? Well, that's even more obvious. You don't need me to predict earthquakes or volcanos or asteroids on a long, predictable path towards ice age gloom and doom... or the weather, as some people seem to want (honestly, why?). Sure, you'd get some guy saying this for kicks (maybe wars, or civil wars, or something involving Russia as well), but it won't convince.

The point of the defined test is partly as rhetoric so the limitations can be understood by other people, and to see if anyone would be smart enough to devise a system when facing the actual challenges of time, plus the uncompromising eye of a critic determined to insist time is linear unless you jump through a series of *his* hoops (all of which actually haven't been engineered at all to suit the complexity of time...).

Basically (bit more than that), when you ask me to predict, you're kinda asking me to prove the precise position and spin of an electron. Without altering it's course.

Maybe, in one 'verse, I might learn how to modify events so instead of avoiding the end result, it causes it instead.

Of course, the predictor would have to predict the exact galaxy ( with precise celestial co-ordinates......right ascension and declination ) out of millions, and the exact date and time.

I like your suggestion of galaxies and stars. Precise information is the issue (like remembering two phone numbers after looking once but without being able to look again). However, I would have to scour the entire night sky for a suitable object to observe, that isn't observed already by other obversatories. Wait for it to do something (maybe die before then?). Then, as you say, merely encode the very precise information into an emotional format and send it back. Very hard. If I could pull it off though... also very convincing.

Apparently, a 'lot of stars explode'. And there's trouble defining 'which ones' as... telescopes are only so powerful (different magnification/depth). Could be clusters. Could be off and focus on the wrong star or stars. A supernova is a less occurring stella event, but... which one would be of such a scale that it'd be noticed (by myself)? Dust. Debris. Clouds. False positives. Dozens of issues apparently. Cost. Are you going to buy the telescope? lol! I guess he wasted his [my] time there [trying out the telescope suggestion]...

In simple? I need an event that ALWAYS occurs. In every timeline (so no writing tests, as it means different timelines have different tests - we tried this but it varies from your personal age, location etc to giving the questions to supplied answers). Both me and the observer need to see it, but can do nothing about it. It has to be unique enough that when it occurs doesn't matter if there is no date (because it's a once only event). It cannot be something that can be readily dismissed as 'coincidence' (and believe me a lot of things can... anyone with enough determination can dismiss anything as 'coincidence').

It might not be scientific. But it has to be personally convincing. To you. Whoever. The guy on the street. Predicting a star exploding in the sky is unimpressive, but say, for example, if I predicted rainmantime had tried to hang himself at one point, that would be convincing to him at least.

 

[Darby]

The problem is, your perspective is of a linear timeline. You remember titor said about divergence (although I don't associate myself with him at all) and alternate timelines?

Uhhh...If you don't associate yourself with him at all why would you reference his "theories"?

 

[Twighlight]

Well, imagine this; in one timeline, you get hit by a car, and in another, I inform you of the car hitting event, BUT, as a result, you avoid roads and don't get hit. So you denounce me as lying on the prediction. THAT is a self-denying prediction paradox.

No....you continue to miss the point.

You have no way at all of distinguishing between something that is 'prevented' from happening.....and something that would not have happened anyway. That makes the whole excercise utterly pointless.

Look....on October 12th at 8.43pm, your house will be demolished by a meteorite. Ah, but now that I have told you about it......the event won't happen !

Damn....I need to stock up on Kryptonite. Saving the world from all these impending disasters is hard work.

 

[TimeLord]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability