The Impossibility of Knowing Your Own Future

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Cyperium, May 10, 2012.

  1. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    Because by knowing it you will not be able to keep to it, it would be like balancing on a infinitely thin line. Because of this I think that the future has to be undefined even in principle. If it wasn't then there would be a possibility of knowing it, and even if it can't be done using current knowledge even the possibility must have to be compensated for because it would create a contradiction to physics (whatever future, you could always break it, so any prediction would be false).

    Do you see what I mean?

    Could this be the reason for the uncertainty principle? The future has to be uncertain. If so then we can further approximate that our technology can get that advanced since it has to be compensated for in advance.

    Could also be that a alien civilisation has already become that advanced and that the universe had to compensate for it.

    Could this be an argument for free will? Maybe it has to exist because of the possibility of knowing the future, or because the brain has a capability of - to some extent - knowing the future evolution of itself and can thus change it's own future. I don't think that the way to know the future must necessarily alter the system that it knows about - especially if the knowledge of the system is the system.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ChasingOceans Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2
    I think the first paragraph has to be true, by definition..
    The future is all of the possible outcomes that we haven't yet reached, time-wise.. not one definite line of progression, as it is so often portrayed in pop culture.

    However I think it would be a bit of a stretch to call this the REASON for the uncertainty principal... maybe the other way around.
    I don't know a huge amount about quantum mechanics. But, without the Uncertainty Principal, then surely everything from the start of what we perceive as time, would already be laid out? Every action, every event, would be a direct product of the events leading up to it.
    If this was the case, then the future would indeed be a single event, that even if it were worked out, would not be able to be changed. (Because the working out of the future, and the effect that had, would already have had their effect on the future by the time it was seen.. if that makes sense)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    Yes, everything is laid out. But what has to be considered is that there could be knowledge of it. Because of that a infinite loop is produced where the knowledge of it will almost certainly change the events and even if that would produce new knowledge about the new future the knowledge of that will again change the events. There seem to be no way out of that loop once you know everything. Even if we can't know everything and thus predict the future, the possibility still remains and must be compensated for.

    If everything that can possess knowledge also has free will then the loop is broken. The solution to free will could then be uncertainty principle where full knowledge about a system will undoubtably change it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Cosmic Billiards.

    Think of a pool table. You got your balls on it, right? So, you grab your stick and shove it at one of your balls. One thing leads to another and physics happens.

    Trust me, it's really weird. Physics is...

    If you can measure the movement of every particle of air in the room, every length and angle of the little furs on the felt table top, every dimple and mass distributive characteristic of the two balls in the equation and every bump, dimple and grain in the wood beneath the felt on a microscopic scale... the exact angular motion of the que stick in your rough little hands and the exact motion of your arms- You could predict with extreme accuracy the exact motion of each ball. To the millimeter.

    Successfully predicting the future needs only the proper variables to plug into the equation. On a cosmic scale... well that's quite a feat. Measuring each neutrino and cosmic rays and the perterbations in highly complex brains on Earth... Those brains influenced by patterned behavior, genetic disposition and learned behavior for however long said brain has been operating...

    We aren't doing so hot with complex weather patterns and they are much, much less sophisticated and complex than brains. Not as delicious but not as complex.

    But taking the rudimentary basics of it; it's plain to envision the future as quite determinant or determined. Thing is, we currently lack the means to measure enough of those pesky little variables to make accurate predictions.
    If we DID have those means... Well, the concept of "Free will," as defined by being of supernatural origin and outside of physics, goes flat out the window.

    But we lack that ability for now. We cannot even measure the path of electrons very accurately. Damned things are too small for our clunky macroscopic instruments. We tend to influence the outcome by trying to measure it.
    So pick up the que stick and forget quantum mechanics for a while, clap Newton on the shoulder and enjoy your game. For our lives, at least, we can have the illusion of the ability to choose our destiny.

    It's probably the most absurd usage of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal that I've ever seen on a forum... Ol' man would roll over in his grave if he knew.

    But he can't know because his brain has ceased operation. We're safe from in-determinant rollings.

    Long time after Edit:
    I forgot to be clear about something in the above...

    One thing the O.P needs to consider:

    Hypothetically, if I measure out the variables restricting to an outcome in my house and make a determination that my son is going to cut himself in the kitchen with a knife by accident, by having measured all the motion of all the particles in the Universe that would influence the making of this event... ONE of the Variables that must be factored into the equation is the very influence I would play by acting to prevent that outcome. As close as I am to my son, that variable, as a very strong influence, would be made very early on in the factoring.

    My influence is just as important as all the other measured influences. That being the case, the resultant prediction would not be that my son would cut himself with a knife. It would be that my son was about to go delving into his finger with an inattentive inanimate object and I'd go rushing out there and prevent it- Which would promptly happen soon after my calculator hit the floor.

    The very premise of the O.P. requires that "knowing the future" by whatever means the O.P. decided would be required, must automatically remove the predictive body from the influence of the Universe to make the very question valid. Which... kinda makes the question invalid all by itself.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2012
  8. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    But if knowing the future is put into the equation (as you suggest) then you would know that future instead and you would prevent your son from cutting himself. However that you know exactly how you would react would probably change your future as you wouldn't be able to go exactly into your own footsteps - so even if you are still able to reach your son and prevent him, you wouldn't be able to do so with the same accuracy as the future you predicted - even with all variables in place.
     
  9. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    You're over-complicating this, trooper. It Really IS as simple as it seems.

    You MUST factor in any influences, including your own. We've covered this...

    This does NOT mean that you will create an endless loop as you claim; "Ad Infinitum." You assume it would because you can imagine that would be the case... but your imagination is insufficient. You're thinking of a factor here and a factor there, not the actual trillions of trillions of actual influences involved in such a process.

    How imaginable is it that you could measure all influences and factors in the Universe in order to accurately predict the future to great detail? As extreme in complexity as that idea is- whether or not your knowledge of an event is a major influence really becomes the least of your problems.


    You're transposing the factoring. You think, "I predict this." You then think, "I must now factor in my reaction to this." This is unnecessary and I think, it may be what's leading you to the misconception that you will create an endless loop. How could you predict such a future using a calculation of ALL the factors if you failed to factor in all the factors? (Which you would have to have done- to not know your reaction.) I think you're not really comprehending the magnitude of influence involved!

    You would be factoring in trillions upon trillions of sets of data. Your one (albeit somewhat important) reaction to any prediction can be or even is- factored in PRIOR to any prediction, rendering your paradox, again, moot. Simply and easily.
    As long as the influences match the data sets- In any order - any predictions will be valid.

    I provided a very simplistic closed loop example above. It had no infinite paradox nor any confusion. It is a very simplified and imagined; model.

    There are many ways it may work out, but if you measure all the influences, you will determine the outcome regardless of "pre-knowledge" about the data sets, simply because all the factors and influences of that knowledge must be calculated in. Knowing the entirety of all influences will show you your reactions, your outcomes and the predictions MUST come true because only a supernatural force could change them at that point.

    Back to Billiards: freeze time and map and position every thing in the universe, down to "sub-quantum" measurements (Yes, I just made that word in quotes up...)
    Now resume time and let those particles and what have you in motion bang into each other. Now, you KNOW the physics to mathematically graph and calculate the movements and trajectories of them ALL. Every single one. Where they will go, what they will collide with and INFLUENCE and how those collisions will lead to others--- On a Cosmic scale of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of interactions... The magnitude of it, remember? But the Physics Is The Same. The Properties stay the same. The results MUST adhere to Physics. It would be determinant one billion years ago that one billion years later, you would start the process of measuring and graphing and plotting the courses of all factors and influences of the Universe, even though it wasn't "known" yet. It was not intelligently known any more than the cue ball knows it will hit the eight ball. But it is determinant that the cue ball WILL hit the eight ball as an inevitability because that is the physics of it. Again, on a cosmic scale, your setting out to determine (with unimaginable means) the Universe would be 'known' long before you started simply because the influences were the Physics already at work.
    Your reactions would already be determined before you see them and your reactions to that- as well. Because those influences were already set in motion since the dawn of time.
    Like billiard balls, the movements are Physics at Work and only a Divine Influence could alter them.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2012
  10. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    It may not be possible, there's just too much information for anyone to deal with, BUT we can imagine that it is possible, and it might be possible in very simple closed systems. In such a system the knowledge of the system doesn't need to be calculated in though since you could only affect the system by that knowledge if you were self a part of it.

    However, you are part of the system of your own brain, and perhaps calculating all influences there would be sufficient to illustrate the idea of the neverending loop.

    I think that you are over-complicating this, to such a extent that you fail to see the consequences. In order to deal with this we must assume that we allready have a model of the future that you know about - this might be impossible in reality, but we're dealing with a philosophical concept that if it could be done then it would give rise to an endless loop where new knowledge of the future would always have to be factored in, which would give rise to new knowledge once again.



    Yes, the reaction to the prediction is factored in, and giving rise to new knowledge where my reaction to the new knowledge would also have to be factored in, and my reaction to that new knowledge would also have to be factored in - where would it stop?

    Also keep in mind that conscious phenomena exists along with the physical without having to constitute new physical parameters to feed into the equation. In other words, my knowledge of it is transparent to the physical processes. At least if we follow what we know of physics and consciousness today (which is admittedly very little).


    I don't see how you managed to rule the knowledge and reactions out of it, instead I get the impression that you managed to ignore it, sure you mentioned it, but failed to incorporate it into future reactions.


    But if I know my reaction, I can easily change it or I would feel that I was moved towards a reaction - unable to change it - and thus not have free will.

    The balls wouldn't have any knowledge and would not have any reaction to that knowledge if it had one, it is different with a observer that is able to act on new information.

    Why couldn't I change it, if I knew it? The information that the prediction gives CAN'T be put into the same prediction as it would give a endless loop where I could always change the future that I knew about (at least to a limited extent) no matter how well we predicted it.
     
  11. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    If the universe is deterministic, all future events are predetermined, and there is no free will. Therefore in such a universe, knowledge of the future can not change the future, but is, rather, one of the events that will necessarily lead to it. There's no arguing this point without either directly or indirectly undoing our premise, which is that the universe is deterministic. It really is just that simple.

    If on the other hand the universe is not deterministic, although certain events can still reasonably be said to be inevitable (our sun going supernova for example), there is an element of probability to everything, which becomes more pronounced when observing the interaction between certain complex systems, such as a bunch of human beings. Knowledge of the future is, at best, merely knowledge of a probable future, and at worst is not knowledge at all. Further, even if we still don't have free will in such a universe, our actions are still indeterminate to the extent that they are influenced by other nondeterministic factors. If we do have free will, then it's just an additional variable in the probabilistic soup.

    Really, we only run into problems when we try to bring nondeterministic ideas into a deterministic universe, or deterministic ideas into a nondeterministic one. An example of the latter would be introducing the idea that the future can be known with absolute certainty in a nondeterministic universe, which if true, would seem to render it deterministic.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2012
  12. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    That sounds like one of the variants on science fiction's classic time-travel paradoxes. The most familiar one is you going back in time and killing your parents before you were born. But as you suggest, just sending information about the future back to the past might create paradoxes too.

    Yeah, there really does seem to be a (at least superficial) similarity between some of the quantum mechanical weirdness on the micro-scale and the time-travel paradoxes on the macro-scale.

    I'm just speculating here, but the common denominator in both cases might turn out to be retro-causality, causal chains that propagate in the future => past temporal direction.

    Keep in mind that most of the laws of physics appear to be time-reversal-invariant. In other words, they work equally well in both temporal directions. So what accounts for observed temporal assymmetry, for the obvious differences between the future and the past?

    Suppose (just speculation) that the ground-state of a super-universe is temporally symmetrical, where causality propagates equally well in both temporal directions. That would arguably mean that time travel paradoxes would be happening all the time on all scales, macro as well as micro. The past would determine the future, while the future would equally be determining the past. So what we might (again speculatively) end up with is a cloud of superimposed probability states, uncrystallized into any coherent reality. A state that the ancients would have called primaeval chaos.

    Now imagine an event happening in this primaeval chaos. Perhaps some kind of random fluctuation or something. Imagine an event, something like a giant explosion, that gets all the causal chains in its local vicinity oriented and propagating in the same direction, away from the blast.

    Now, suddenly, time has become locally assymmetrical. Meaning that events in the past direction can determine events in the future direction, without being undone by retrocausality operating the other way.

    Conditions now exist where a coherent reality can form like a crystal. And maybe, just maybe, that's what our physical universe is.

    But suppose that although the big-bang has given time a direction, by creating conditions where causality can only propagate for significant temporal distances in one direction away from the blast, that it's still possible for retrocausation to exist, for caual chains to propagate against the flow, for very short intervals. Microscopic space-time intervals on the scale of subatomic particles. That might be consistent with some of the quantum weirdness stuff such as superimposed probabiity states that physics observes on the micro-scale. And it might also provide some account for why there's a classical-quantum, macro-micro distinction in the first place.

    In this theory, if it weren't for the big-bang, the residual quantum weirdness on the micro-scale might exist on all scales, and a coherent universe like our own would seemingly be impossible.

    That's just sci-fi style speculation of course.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2012
  13. TAMallick Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    We have so limited power, so we have not ability to do and know everything.
     
  14. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    when discussing knowledge of future events i think it is important to separate the physical from the human..

    discussing the physical side, ie science,particles, anything that can be measured..
    vs discussing the human factor,what a person would do in any given situation.

    this would go along way to compare apples with apples..
     
  15. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It doesn't really make any difference. Whether we have dualist or physicalist views, the universe is either deterministic, or it's not. Once you introduce even a single nondeterministic element, even an otherwise deterministic universe ceases to be deterministic due to the influence that element has on how things unfold.
     
  16. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    You're adding confusion by adding some divine or spiritualistic commentary. It's unnecessary and utterly irrelevant. If you believe in primitive superstitions, that's fine. But they have no place in a discussion about reality.
     
  17. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    But it's only in the deterministic universe that the paradox could exist, cause that is the only universe where the future could be fully known. In fact, that it is deterministic means that there is a knowledge where the future is known even though we can't access it. But the paradox remains even if it's only hypothetical. If we could, in real-time, get access to such a knowledge then that knowledge would constantly change as our reaction to that knowledge would always be updated with the new future. There could be no limit as to how much such a future would change as we constantly have knowledge of it as the knowledge itself would make it unpredictable. As soon as we loose knowledge of it, it would again become predictable.


    Yes, the idea assumes a deterministic universe.

    The idea assumes total determination, without any nondeterministic ideas. That's what causes the paradox. The outcome of the prediction would have to incorporate the outcome of the prediction (since we have knowledge of it) - which is impossible - even if it is just a part of the prediction, like what we will have for breakfast tomorrow.

    You do see that there is a theoretical possibility of knowing exactly what I will have for breakfast tomorrow in a completely predictable universe? If I knew that and would change it, then a new prediction would have to be made (but in advance) where a number of possibilities would have to be considered as I constantly change my mind as to what I would have for breakfast.

    We should also consider that the future might already exist and that we could potentially see it, even if it sounds like a paranormal idea, it's still theoretically possible that there could be some way of seeing the future. I'm not too familiar with that idea though, but don't scientists sometimes say that particles can travel forward into the future for a brief moment (like quantum tunneling into the future)? That would suggest that there is already a future laid out for us.


    Might not be only sci-fi though, I do recall scientists say that particles can sometimes jump into the future, I think they used the phrase "quantum tunneling into the future". So there might be more food to your idea than you think!

    Update: Tried to search that phrase into Google but couldn't find any results so they might have phrased it otherwise, I will keep searching though, I'm sure I've read something like that somewhere.
     
  18. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Cyperium,

    These comments above really demonstrate where your misconceptions are.

    It's not about You.

    You are not outside of the equations, you ARE A BILLIARD BALL.

    You are not the observer. Only a divine being outside of the Universe can be an observer.

    Rav really nailed it on the head:

    You are not making predictions, in this scenario, Nostradamus style.

    You would be simply observing Cause And Effect. Measuring and graphing the trajectories and plotting their points and the inevitable conclusions. You cannot make "predictions" before any knowledge so you gain no "new" knowledge of the system. That includes any reactions you may have, as those trajectories would already be in motion.

    THAT, I think, is the simplest misconception you are having.

    Your brain is physically, chemically and electrically dependent to operate and unless you believe it is divine, supernatural or spiritual, it must obey physics.
    If you do believe your brain is not physical, that some divine and supernatural process is at work, say so now and I will gladly step aside and leave the discussion rather than waste my time with primitive superstition and mumbo jumbo that prefers to ignore scientific reasoning so it can hug it's pretty fairy tales gleefully to its chest. I have no patience anymore for that kind of ignorance that denies itself the ability to learn.

    If you do not hold a dear belief that the brain is divine:

    Then bear in mind that your brain is just another complex system of interacting "billiard balls" like the analogy and any reactions you may have would already be factored in to the measurement of trajectories long before you "made any predictions."
    Incidentally, although the word "prediction" can be used, it's not the most accurate word to use. It's more a measurement of trajectories, cause and effect-
    The exact same as measuring the motion of a billiard ball and it's interactions with others, only trillions of trillions of trillions of times greater in magnitude.


    Currently, you strike me as someone whose brain is already full, unable or unwilling to learn a concept you haven't grasped. Perhaps you should set aside arguing about why you've been clinging to your misconceptions long enough to listen to what others are explaining to you.
     
  19. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    Trust me, I have grasped this concept long enough to know that there are exceptions to it. Previously to the idea I got, I thought as you did, so this is a exploration into a different kind of thinking, I still know exactly what you mean that I'm part of the prediction - that is what causes the paradox though if you dare to explore a different view of what would happen.

    In a completely determined universe the knowledge that I have of the future would be incorporated into the determination of course (as you suggest), but if I have direct access to that knowledge then the problem arises as it would constantly change as I know about it. It's that simple, no mysterious forces need to be present (well constantly knowing the future would perhaps fit into that category, but it's not something that couldn't theoretically be done, as the knowledge of the future could potentially exist).

    If all my reactions to all possible futures would be factored in, then it would become practically a infinite prediction which could never be fully solved. In other words; the problem arises because the solution is part of the solution.

    Also, I didn't go about making this thread because I thought it would be easy to argue, I went about doing this thread because I had an idea that could potentially be shown to be true, to this date it turns out that it could as you have failed to convince me of something that I didn't already know beforehand and had thought about previous to the idea. Perhaps the misconception here is that you thought that I didn't know about how a predetermined universe would behave? That I was too closed in on my idea? Trust me, my idea is days old and I'm not closed in on it.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2012
  20. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    not really..if you are talking particle physics then things can be deterministic,
    if you are talking human nature, then it is not..

    i am not talking divine or spiritualistic..im talking human condition..

    if the question was can the future of a particle be determined vs can the future of a person be determined..

    i often see the question (as in this thread) 'can you know your own future?' then see answers that involve particle physics or some other science that gets away from the human perspective, if you are gonna answer the question of can we know our own future, then the answer must be in the same category as the question..

    so in essence the question is Can human actions be predicted?

    <edit>
    Neverfly
    my point..
    you said:
    "You are not outside of the equations, you ARE A BILLIArd ball"
    this is what i am talking about, a billiard ball can be predicted what it will do once set in motion..a human cannot be predicted what he will do..
    you are comparing apples to oranges
     
  21. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I do not trust you. Why should I accept your word that you have grasped it; When everything you type on the topic clearly expresses that:
    You have Misconceptions.
    You have not grasped it.
    You are not understanding the concept.

    I am not trying to be harsh but come on... I'm not going to drop to my knees and kiss your butt so that you feel better about being told that you are not getting the idea.

    So you can "choose" at this point whether you would like to learn about what you've asked or whether you will stubbornly cling to your misconceptions and argue with others who try to explain it to you.


    No, you clearly do not, because if you did, you would see quite easily that there is no paradox. Your misconceptions are in your way.

    Your misconception is still at work here.
    Your "awareness" would only be a factor that can be determined.

    Again, where your misconception is: You are thinking of this statistically. This is not statistics. I told you already- This is not statistics. But I shouldn't be surprised you ignored that as you have ignored every other explanation I've given while you bullheadedly stick to your misconceptions.
    You do not NEED to know all possible reactions to all possible... This is NOT STATISTICS.

    There is only ONE. One Math. One calculation.

    So you admit that you will ignore explanations as to why you are incorrect in your assumptions in order to use the thread to validate your idea?

    I have not "failed to convince you" as much as you have failed to read, contemplate and consider the explanations given. You have ignored them repeatedly and then thrust your misconceptions back out there- no matter how many times I've explained them and explained to you that YOU HAVE MISCONCEPTIONS. I can tell simply because at how often I've had to repeat myself on the basics that you keep ignoring and passing over. Such as that this is not statistics. Such as that all events are already in motion and that your "predictions" cannot be made prior to them. Such as that it's a measurement of cause and effect.


    So you can "choose" at this point whether you would like to learn about what you've asked or whether you will stubbornly cling to your misconceptions and argue with others who try to explain it to you.

    However the influences work in your head, whether you are going to be stubborn and militant or whether you will calm your ego down, step back and say, "OK, maybe I'm not getting this. I thought I was. Can we start over and take it step by step and find the error?"
    I leave that to you- It's not my obligation to Make You Do it.

    Unless the Human condition is divine, it IS predictable. You are mistaking complexity of a system with unpredictability. Currently, we lack the technology or the means to map and measure the brain during behavior to this kind of extent. But we are making remarkable advances on it as discussed from many articles posted on the forum.
    And they are show the same conclusions.
    Particle Physics is a basic as to how our brains function.

    I'm well aware that you believe in primitive superstition, squirrel and that the agenda of your beliefs will not allow you to separate Human Beings from Divine ability. Discussing it with you is an effort in futility because you're closed to any scientific basics that contradict what you want to believe. You're fine with scientific reasoning or explanations as long as they don't call any pre-supposed belief into question and if they do, will shut your brain off and put up a wall.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2012
  22. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    I might know my own future. I don't have the balls to post it.
     
  23. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    It is impossible to know your own future. Time must pass for the truth to come to knowledge, and the future is always in due time.
     

Share This Page