If you could know Anything or Everything....would you want to? (1 Viewer)

[Mark Dill]

Lew, your response reflects a belief that time is constantly flowing and we can do nothing about it. According to that view, the future is always the future and the past is always the past -- there is no room for flexibility.

But general relativity demonstrations have already proven that this is not so. Time and space are both mediums that can be traveled through, it just takes a lot more effort to get ourselves significantly away from the point in time that we are fixed to as we travel through the timespace at a constant speed. We are the equivalent of the earliest scientists speculating about the stars and the ability to travel through space, only it is not the earth that we are fixed to, but to our point in time - 12/2/2005.

Anyhoo, I'll do my best to explain my viewpoint in regards to your domestic example.



OK lets go back to the point where you, sitting in the other room, ask the question to the device, and the answer is YES. Now, from your wife's perspective, what has changed? Nothing. So how has her free will been taken away? She has no knowledge of the device or the answer. (I would argue that even if she did, her free will is not being restricted but that is a much hairier question) From her perspective, she got up and she made a choice. That is called free will. The machine knew what option she would choose, but it did not control which option she must choose. She chose it freely. And there you go, determinism and free will are peacefully coexisting.

 

[Holadem]

And what if Wifie was aware of the machine?

IF we agree that the machine in infaillible, then there is no way Wifie could do anything other than what the machine says. That is the opposite of free will.

--
H

 

[Mark Dill]

Ah, but the issue is not whether or not she could DO anything different - the issue is whether her free choice to do something was affected. There is a subtle difference. Her choice was not affected.

 

[RobertR]

Seems like it all boils down to awareness. We are able to act on the principle of free will as long as we know nothing about the future. If we did know the future, our perception of our free will would change. I'd give up my free will perception for some choice bits of knowledge about the future.

 

[BrianW]

Lew, I think I could have explained a few things a little better than I did. And I assure you, my concept of predestination has nothing to do with anything religious.

I do think, however, that we are imposing our constrained view of time on the Universe in order to reach intuitive, but not necessarily correct, conclusions.

We live in a world of BEFOREs and AFTERs. We would think quite differently of time if we were able to move through it in any direction and at almost any speed like we can through space. We speculate about whether time’s entire history is already recorded in stone. But even verbalizing such speculation imposes our constrained view of time, because the word “already” implies that it was written before some moment in time. If time’s history is “already” recorded, it certainly wasn’t recorded at any particular point in time, or even before time began. It just is. And accepting this concept of existence outside of time is very, very difficult for us. Even the words “predestination” and “preordained” suggest a moment in time at or before which the future was written. This imposition of our constrained view of time as a sequence of events, while intuitive and useful, is not really correct since we now know that time is another dimension of the space-time fabric.

Think of it this way: Events are located in time in much the same way that objects are located in space. If you were to step into a higher dimension of space, even just into the fourth dimension, you would be able to see every subatomic particle of everything in our Universe. There would be no BEHIND or IN FRONT OF, no INTERIOR or EXTERIOR, no INSIDE or OUTSIDE. In our Universe, we see our clothing, hair, and skin. In the fourth spatial dimension, we would see our blood, guts, organs, interiors of organs. In fact, no atom of any 3D object we look at would be hidden from our 4D sight.

Step outside the dimension of time, and what would you see? Similarly, you would see all the events of history laid out before you. There would be no PAST, no FUTURE, no BEFORE and no AFTER. Events of all of history would be laid out before you like the galaxies of the cosmos. And like the galaxies of the cosmos, they are where they are.

Does this kind of structure mean that our actions are preordained? Again, even asking such a question imposes our constraint on a realm where the concepts of BEFORE and AFTER, PAST and FUTURE do not apply. It makes as much sense to wonder if it was “preordained” that we would be unable to determine what object is hidden inside a box without opening it, thus imposing our constrained concepts of INTERIOR and EXTERIOR on a realm in which such concepts have no meaning. We can’t see the future any more than we can see an unknown object hidden inside a box. Neither, I believe, can we change the future any more than we can change what object we will find in a box when we open it. It is what it is. (Schrödinger’s cat notwithstanding, of course ).

So do I believe in predestination? The answer is, not in the way that you probably think. While I believe that we cannot change what the future will be, I also believe that it is we, in accordance with our free will, who have already (there’s that confounded word again) determined what the future holds and are therefore the authors of that future. The fact that we currently perceive ourselves as “writing” history at the present moment is merely an artifact of the limitations in the way in which we perceive time as a sequence of events.

 

[MarkHastings]

But what about the fact that we all know we are going to die? This is a perfect example of knowing the future (be it a vague one). Does that mean we no longer have free will?

Or does it mean that our free will is being altered by this fact? In other words, if you had no idea that (eventually) you'd die, you would definitely do things differently in your life.

 

[Charles J P]

I wonder if our awareness of our own mortality is hard coded into us. I.e. if a baby was left in a jungle to be raised by animals, and somehow never observed anything die, would that being ever gain a concept of mortality?

 

[BrianW]

The “research” into time travel is primarily to determine whether the Universe absolutely prevents it, not whether we can actually build a time machine. Current thinking is that the Universe does indeed allow time travel, but it would require god-like expenditures of energy. But if we could build a time machine, it would consist of a wormhole whose openings, while perhaps right next to each other in space, are separated by a fixed amount of time. Go through your Week-Ago wormhole, and you will emerge from the other end one week in the past. Going through the other way moves you a week into the future. Going through multiple times in the same direction will move you multiple weeks into the past or future. The biggest limitation is that you can’t go back to a time before the time machine existed, so no dinosaur hunting.

So far, nothing of what we know about the Universe disallows this, which is pretty cool.

For those of you who think that the future is changeable, but the past isn't, let’s do a thought experiment. Presuming we have the technology to build such a time machine, let’s say we build a modest one with openings the size of computer monitors, five minutes apart in time. Set the opening that lets you look five minutes into the future to your left, and set the opening that lets you look five minutes into the past to your right, both facing you.

Now look at the monitor on the left. (It’s not really a monitor, it’s more like a tunnel. You could even reach through it with your hand and see your hand emerge from the monitor on your right five minutes in the future.) You will see yourself from the other monitor’s perspective, five minutes in the future.

This is not a Yes/No box. You will see EVERYTHING you will do five minutes in the future. If you thought it was easy to trick the Yes/No box with nothing but a donut, tricking this thing should be a piece of cake (figuratively speaking). Everything you see yourself doing, don’t do. Everything you see yourself not doing, do that instead. Set up a clock, so you don’t mess up. If you see yourself scratching your ear five minutes in the future, don’t scratch your ear. If you see yourself singing, don’t sing. Pick your nose, don't pick your nose, whatever it takes. It should be SO easy to trick this device into showing you doing something five minutes in the future that you don’t end up doing, right? Of COURSE we can change the future and make this device fallible! How could we not?

Now, if you will, turn your head to the right, and take a look at the other monitor. What you see now is yourself, from the left monitor’s perspective, five minutes in the past.

And as we all know, the past is the past, and cannot be changed.

Got that? By simply turning your head to the right, you’ve instantly shifted your present moment five minutes into the future with regard to what you’re observing in the monitor. The five minutes that was your alterable future when you were looking at the monitor on the left instantly became five minutes of your unalterable past just by shifting your gaze. When you were observing that five minutes of history through the monitor on the left, you saw yourself doing things you presumed you could change. But when you observe that five minutes of history through the monitor on the right, you saw yourself doing things you knew you couldn’t change. Yet, it is the same five minutes of history, and both observations were conducted by the self-same you during the same moment in time. You didn’t even have to travel through time yourself to create this conundrum.

So is that five minutes of history alterable, or not?

 

[MarkHastings]

Brain, I see what you're saying. If you could see yourself 5 minutes into the future, then (in 5 minutes) do something that contradicts what you did on this "monitor".

Now the question I have is, if what you are seeing on the monitor is considered the "future", how is it possible that you are seeing it in the present? The very fact that you can see it...wouldn't that mean that it's not really considered the future and thus any 'change' you make to the actual future, is not a change after all?

In other words, let's say you look 30 minutes into the future and you see yourself driving your car. Now, in 30 minutes, you sit on the couch and negate the fact that this montior showed you driving your car.

I would say that the future was already mapped out for you to be sitting on the couch at that particular moment. Once you've used this monitoring device, you've moved the so called 'future' into the present and it can no longer be considered the 'future' anymore. You aren't really changing the future because that future (or what you think of as the future) is no longer the future!

 

[BrianW]

Rats! I knew I shouldn't have used the word "monitor."

Mark, these aren't like television monitors on which you see yourself as if you were being followed by a camera crew. They are actually two openings to the endpoints of a wormhole that are separated in time by five minutes. If the opening on the left were as large as a doorway, you could walk through it and emerge from the opening on the right, five minutes in the future, though the trip would seem to you to be instantaneous. Likewise, you could step through the opening on the right and emerge from the opening on the left five minutes in the past.

They're like the doorways in Monsters, Inc. except they transport you through time as well as through space.

It's a classic wormhole time machine. I simply made them small enough to fit on a desk (for convenience) and to preclude us from actually stepping through them and travelling through time, since my point was to demonstrate that actual time travel wasn't necessary to gain knowledge of the future or the past.

And since these "monitors" are actually portals, or doorways, if you prefer, you can look through them just as you would look through any window or open doorway. Except with these portals, when you look through the left one, you see whatever the right portal is facing, but five minutes in the future. And when you look through the portal on the right, you will see whatever the portal on the left is facing, five minutes in the past.

So when you set the two portals on your desk with both of them facing you, you would be able to see yourself -- indeed reach through and touch yourself -- as if through an open window.

Is that clearer?

But don't forget that the portals are separated by five minutes of time. If you stick your hand through the portal on the left, you won't see it emerge from the portal on the right until five minutes in the future.

So what you see in the portal on the left is you sitting at your desk five minutes in the future. What you see in the portal on the right is you sitting at your desk five minutes in the past. By shifting your attention from the left portal to the right portal, you are instantly shifting the present moment five minutes into the future with regard to what you observe. The future you that you saw in the portal on the left becomes the past you that you now see in the portal on the right. You know you can't change your past, but you think you can change your future. Yet by simply shifting your attention from one portal to the other, five minutes of your life as observed through the portals is instantly transformed from the future, from which you think you can deviate, to the past, which you know you can't change.

I hope it's more understandable now. Sorry I wasn't clearer before.

 

[MichaelBA]

A great deal of fascinating and particularly clearly stated general information about the physics of time travel in this link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/

 

[Lew Crippen]

Since the definition of predestination is religious, it follows that any concept must necessarily be religious.

To your points as to the nature of time and our ability to not be able to change the future and still be able to make choices, I find the arguments I’ve seen (so far) both convoluted and unconvincing.

Perhaps, some things in the end are articles of faith. Since Enstien has been used as a source, I’ll bring up his famous quote objecting to parts of quantum mechanics: “God does not play dice with the universe”.

So while I do not object to (and in fact accept) the non-linear nature of time I am not at all sure that means that the future is unchangeable (and unchanging).

 

[Lew Crippen]

Well Holadem, she would probably use that as an excuse to never make the coffee, as opposed to 99% of the time she does not make the coffee today.

 

[Cees Alons]

Oh, yes. In your model light waves, and what's more: information, is leaking from the past and the future to the present. Current insight in physics forbid that.

It's arguable that not much information is leaking to the present from the past, because in principle that info is already "known" (in memories). But even those theoretical wormhole devices only mask the real theoretical question here: can (100% correct) information from the future be present in this time?

The very assumption would also negate the Heisenberg uncertainty, BTW. If information we have now (about the state of the universe) could faultlessly predict what will happen in the future, Heisenberg's law would obviously no longer be valid.

And another one (Chaos Theory): remember the wings of the butterfly making all the difference between a possible storm at another end of the world (not as is often, but incorrectly, said causing a storm)? We need (or the magic ball needs) to know everything to confidently predict the future!


Cees

 

[MarkHastings]

I don't think it can.

Brain, I kind of understood what you meant about the whole 'monitor' issue, but I'm not 100% familiar with all of this, so forgive me if I get lost.

Let's say you had a time portal that would transfer anything 30 minutes into the future, and now let's say you had a future predicting "monitor" that would show you the other end of that portal (30 minutes in the future)...if I threw a ball through the portal, would it appear on the monitor? In theory, you could throw the ball through the portal and watch it fall out the other side of the portal (on the monitor). Correct?

But now, what if you set the monitor to 31 minutes into the future? Would the ball appear on the monitor BEFORE you even threw the ball through the portal?

Let's say you DID see the ball on the monitor (a minute before you throw it through the portal). Since you could very well not throw the ball through the portal (within the next minute), wouldn't it mean that this "future prediction" is not 100% accurate? I don't think it has anything to do with the future already being mapped out as is does with the fact that a future predicting machine can never be 100% accurate.

Instead of thinking that a 100% accurate future predicting machine will negate free will, isn't it more accurate to think that free will will always disprove any accuracy of a future predicting machine?

Or maybe owning such devices that allows you to send something into the futre, as well as seeing the future (at the same time) would negate each other out and the universe would explode. Or have I watched "Back to the Future" one too many times?

 

[Charles J P]

See here for some cool information on time travel in the movies, some original short stories, etc.

http://www.mjyoung.net/time/

 

[RobertR]

You consistently use that spelling. Trying to tell Brian something?

 

[BrianW]

Here are a few links that discuss wormhole time machines:

Everything You Wanted to Know About Time Travel

Nova Transcript

Stanford University Paper

On that last one, you'll need to skip to the section on General Relativity's allowance of time travel. The fiction at the beginning of the paper, though entertaining, is misleadingly contrived and doesn't really get an otherwise excellent paper off to a good start. It is this last link that addresses a lot of what Cees brings up about information leaking.

Cees, I see what you're saying about chaos, but if the future is mapped out, then it doesn't necessarily follow that chaos doesn't reign. Again, it isn't intuitive, but it may well be the case.

Also, while I find the theoretical research fascinating, I will be the first to admit that it is theoretical, and that conclusions yielded by thought experiments -- even those subject to mathematical analysis -- do not rise to the level of empirical data. I make no claim that I or anybody understands the true nature of time. While I find the research compelling, the conclusions cannot yet be tested. Even so, I think it's fun to follow the math to see what non-intuitive places it will take you.

But remember: All of Relativity (Special and General) Theory and all the equations it produced are the result of a very simple thought experiment. When it became apparent that General Relativity predicted the existence of black holes, most physicists rejected the notion, saying that the Universe must somehow disallow that kind of thing, because it's just too strange to exist.

We know better now about black holes. If we reject the notion or possibility of time travel because it's just too weird, will we be making the same mistake we did with regard to black holes?

 

[Cees Alons]

No it doesn't. But that wasn't my point.
However, for an entity to exactly "predict" (have knowledge of) even parts of the future, chaos theory seems to demand that it has perfect knowledge of all of the present. Which is a bit much, especially if you have to multiply by many futures (like in, say, one in each 1/100 of a future second). And which may also be theoretically impossible in the light of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

(Thanks for the links. Will certainly read it.)


Cees

 

[Mark Dill]

Impossible. If your monitor is 100% accurate it will always show what actually happens, not what was "supposed" to happen. If you purposely try to do the opposite of whatever it shows you, something will ALWAYS go wrong with what you TRY to do. Because whatever the monitor shows you, that's what happens. If you see a ball pop out, and then choose not to throw it - maybe 10 minutes later, you'll try another experiment with a 20-minute portal. OOPS so that's where that ball came from on the 31-minute monitor! Or if you don't see the ball come out, you'll think "Ah HA! I will throw the ball now", and then it will slip out of your hand and roll under the desk.

You have defined the monitor as infallible. It shows the end result of what you choose to do, no matter what information you use to make that decision. You are using the information from the monitor itself to factor into your actions, but it is still accounting for all that. No matter how many hoops you jump through on the way to your decision, it will show the end result.