The Impossibility of Knowing Your Own Future

I'm sorry if I have overlooked your posts keith, I've been so involved in the posts with Neverfly. The link you posted is very interesting, I have to think about how they could change the thoughts in the OP though, it could be possible that the past can be changed due to my reaction of the future, in which the process of determining my future would be changed. If the prediction was handed on a paper to me, then I could in this case see the actual words change before my eyes as I decide to change my future

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Disclaimer:
The above is a pet theory and should probably not be taken that seriously.

The article presents a very new finding and I think we'll have to wait in order to see the actual implications of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BTW Neverfly..
you missed my query about not knowing where to look for valid peer reviewed papers(or however you put it..)

since you were quick to dismiss google as a valid source..its only fair to point me to a reference site you would consider valid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I must have missed that, sorry. I don't remember you asked that.
For physics
http://arxiv.org/
is a good start. Or look into csun.edu, aip.org or slac.stanford

For medical journals, you can try JAMA or biomedcentral- although a heads up- Medical journals tend to be open access.

Cyperium,
I read, though not fully all the way through your post. I'll return to it when I have a bit more free time, but real quick from what I saw at a glance:

You took the example I gave, then hypothesized what you THINK you would do.
You hypothesized about ways you MIGHT still thwart the prediction.

The trouble with us discussing this in this manner, without doing the math (We cannot do the math on this one) is that you're able to hypothesize.

Here's the part you missed: You cannot alter the prediction. Simply sitting in your chair and hypothesizing ways you might looks as easy as me hypothesizing ways you cannot.

The DIFFERENCE between the two is that in my explanation, the universe is Deterministic, as defined by the question in the O.P.
In a deterministic Universe, (For yazata, neither of us are claiming that it is or is not, we are debating the effects of a deterministic universe)- Something would prevent you from thwarting the prediction. Your hypothesized thwarts wouldn't mean squat. That is the definition of deterministic.
You cannot thwart the prediction no matter how carefully you try, how well you plan it out, leave sticky notes, etc- because the outcome is already determined by factors that you, yourself, cannot measure to completion. Something will prevent your contrary outcome.

I said this, already.

What you're hypothesizing about is a Non Deterministic Universe, one in which you can thwart the prediction.

This is how it is and I've explained it to the best of my ability. If you are still are not grasping it at this point, I'm not sure what else to tell you.

I'll get back to the rest of your post when I have time to sit uninterrupted and read it all.

This statement is inaccurate.
"We" neither believe nor disbelieve what you just claimed- rather, this is an area that needs further study.
The short short version is- We do not know for sure.
There are several interpretations and I think that we should stand by the Copenhagen interpretation for the purposes of this thread since it's more necessary to be more severe in definitions.

I think it would be a fascinating discussion, though as I told Keith and feel free to open a new thread on the topic where we can hash out this tangent and keep this one better on topic

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You touched on the bafflement that I mentioned in my reply to Yazuta, which is why taking one quote out of his paper in 1927 on Uncertainty didn't impress me.

They laid the groundwork for this field back then and we still have a LOT to learn as of yet.

But again, this is a tangent in this thread and this thread is complex enough as it is...

I'm guilty on this tangent too, by the way....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

looked at the link..
WOW..and you expect the lay man to understand all that??
i did search for mind vs brain..(it was not as simple as that..)
and i started to read through a couple of them..too many words i don't know to fully understand it..but the one article i did read that i did understand enough of was when it said the mind is subjective and immaterial and the brain in objective and material..
which enforces my point about there being a difference between the mind and the brain and how you were arguing that the mind is predictable and subjective to quantum analysis( or some such..at this point i am beginning to forget exactly what you said..) (yeah i know..go back and look..)

i think you were arguing there was no difference between mind and brain..but these articles suggest otherwise..

 

<edit>
slac stanford won't load for me..

 

No, they don't. How can you claim these articles suggest otherwise and not quote them- especially after saying,

Heh heh heh....



Well, actually, squirrel, yes and no. I don't expect the "lay" person to understand it right off the bat, but I do expect the "lay" person to educate himself up to standard if he wishes to express an opinion on an issue in a scientific forum.

For me, when I refer to the journals, it's many hours worth of hard work. I don't just open one, read it like a newspaper article and go, "Ah ha... oh ok."
It almost always involves a lot of research.


The premise is as I said to Cyperium: "Mind" is a word.
It's a label. Just as Weather is the label of the complex patterns of air, temperature, dust, salinity, moisture... "Weather" is not separate from air and moisture and such, but it "can" be treated as if it was. The "mind" can be treated as if separate, even though it isn't.
In medical science, it is not separate. If Medicine considered the mind separate from the brain, they would not be researching physical chemicals to be used to treat or influence it.

In psychology, there are fields that can treat the mind as separate, though psychiatry usually does not.

In psychology, the separation is more a distinction of using the patience self awareness to influence or treat their conditions rather than drugs.

When waxing philosophically, we can really open up the debate on this one... But philosophy is not science.

for your edit:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/pdg/journals.html

 

i did quote the one..

..

if they were one and the same then how can it be both subjective and objective at the same time or for that matter material and immaterial at the same time..

ah so you do think it reasonable for the laymen to spend hours trying to make a point..personally i have better things to do than spend that much time and effort to convince you of any point i would have to make,(well..not the study/research part at least ..) for you (or any scientist) it would be reasonable because it is directly related to what you do for a living..IOW it benefits you vocationally to do that much study/research..the only benefit it would be for me is just to prove i am right..and that isn't that important to me (well, to a degree..) i would not be able to utilize any learning from that research to advance my career as i have no career..to utilize such research (separation intended..)
so it is unreasonable to expect a layman to put that much effort just to make a point.
plus it is unreasonable to expect a layman to argue at the same level as one who has years of education and training, to me this seems like a cop out,
something some one once said that stuck..(it is supposed to be someone famous..maybe Einstein?) "If you can't explain it to your grandma, then you don't understand it as well as you think you do"
so its a cop out to claim the other needs to learn how to 'educate himself to a higher standard' when the standard is yours to strive for...
(again there is a reasonable standard to hold the laymen to on this board,but not to the point of unreasonably..)
(sounds like a topic for another thread about what would be a reasonable standard)

what i am learning about mind vs brain from all this, is that this debate has been ongoing for centuries, so your statement of finality about it NOT being separate is inaccurate, and unscientific..(so then it also must apply to my point about it being separate)

i have put those in my bookmark list and will try to reference them as needed..

 

Ok, this means we are getting somewhere. I think each of us, at this point, can safely say we understand the others point of view.

You understand that my claim is that in a Deterministic Universe, the prediction would always be accurate and you would be unable to affect changes after being made aware of the prediction.

I understand that you are asking as to how that can be the case- the knowledge of the prediction must be an influencing factor in the outcome.

Let me know if this is accurate.

Ok, I have answered all of these but I will try again:
If the prediction was made- in a deterministic Universe- You would be unable to change the outcome.
Let's say that you say,
"The prediction comes in and says, 'You will eat apples at noon tomorrow.' "
You decide, in an act of desperation, to thwart it once and for all.
You pull a Glock out of your pocket, right then and there- a MOMENT after hearing the prediction and plant a bullet in your brain. A final act, a sacrifice to your idea- the ultimate way to thwart the prediction. There is Simply NO WAY you can eat apples at noon tomorrow if you die right after the prediction is made and you have that knowledge, right?

Sadly, uhhh...

The bullet failed to kill you. You end up in the hospital drooling on yourself and at noon the next day, a nurse walks in with a tray of cut up apple slices to feed you. Munch, munch gobblesnarf bite.

This is hypothetical, just as your evasions of the predictions are. Again- the difference is made only by the premise that universe is deterministic.
If deterministic, then the outcome is Set.
That is the nature of determinism.

Simply because you cannot fathom what strange occurrences may account for your inability to prevent the outcome is irrelevant- it's the axiom of determinism that you cannot.

That is not what determinism is. If the Universe is deterministic and IF the means were available to account for ALL the factors- then the prediction would be accurate. It would be accurate and it would come to pass in spite of your knowledge of it.
YOU, however, would not have enough accurate and available means to prevent that outcome.

This is one of many statements of this nature that demonstrates you do not fully grasp what hard determinism really is. If you did fully grasp it, you would see what it is that makes the prediction totally accurate.

I have good news, there is a "gray area" in which some postulate a soft determinism. One in which the vast majority of things are determinant but some things are not.

If you change your O.P. to a soft form of determinism, then you can support your claim of an ability to thwart a prediction as plausible.

Personally, I would not respect that. I would find that changing the premise to support your conclusions and that's as scientific as Noahs ark.

Yes, but how do you go about it?
The fact is, Cyperium, I see myself in your behavior. You are acting like I do at times.
Because of that, I'm aware of the faults...
They are
Placing the conclusions before answering the question.
Continually pressing the conclusions while asking the question.
Arguing heavily against answers you have not understood, because you believe that you have understood them.

It's always possible. I've eaten my share of crow in my time, raw, burnt to a crisp and even deliciously prepared.
Am I wrong on this one?
Not likely.
Than stance I'm defending is a very definitive one, one that is beyond myself. I'm not arguing as much from my own understandings or ideas as much as the rules of definitions.
You, however, are defending your position by how you understand the concepts to be and based upon a "problem" that you believe you have found in determinism that others do not seem to see...
And the basic problem with your stance is that we have seen it. I've seen it when I first asked about determinism vs. Free Will. You haven't stumbled on a problem with determinism that the rest of us haven't seen, asked about--- and learned that there was no problem with determinism; there was a problem with our perceptions of it.

I said all the same danged things you have!

Back then, a few years ago, I was arguing the position you are now defending.

 

That's not a quote, squirrel. Copy and paste in quotes the statements that support your conclusions, please.
Quotes, by habit, tend to hang out between quotation marks.

YES I absolutely do.
If the layman is going to argue a position, the onus is on him to educate himself on it.
Saying it takes too long or is hard work is no excuse. How can anyone reasonably support and defend a position that they are unwilling to put any effort into?
This a forum; there is no timer running. You can take your time and read up. You can even say, "I'm uncertain on this issue. Let me do some research on it and I'll come back to this."

Bold mine:

Troop, believe me when I say, I research some weird things that have nothing to do with whatever my job is!!!

If you do not wish to research a position; that's fine. But don't be surprised when you get trampled when you try to postulate on a topic that you admit you are unwilling to put intellectual effort into.
You are not owed kisses and hugs for that.

Not in the least. You just do not wish to put in the effort.
But it remains quite reasonable for me to say, "If you want to discuss it, know what you are talking about."
If you then shirk the onus of putting in the effort, that's on you- no one else.

Really, Squirrel? You're going to talk about a cop out after admitting you have no desire to put effort into your work here?
Education IS very important to many of these topics. That is true... however... I do not think that a person must require that to argue on a forum. If it was a requirement, I'd need to really push my school schedule forward!
Because I'm still working on getting an education, myself. I haven't gotten my Doctorate yet...LOL
Who knows if I even have the brains to pull it off

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh jeez, I shoulda chosen to be a comedian.

No, squirrel a few hours of research is No University Degree- no, no, no...
But it IS productive. It's healthy for the brain and for the act of making posts, arguing positions and increasing your learning potential.
Some of the best and most knowledgeable posters I've come across don't even have a college degree. These are people that have had to seek out helpful guidance from others who were kind enough to volunteer it and research things, find resources on their own. Took years, more time than a University would have taken... But they still accomplished it, nonetheless.
The university offers clear instruction and guidance which reduces confusion and disorganization of learning fundamentals. And... it looks good to employers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But it's not needed for posting on a science forum. Many people who do have degrees on here probably rarely if ever say that they have one.

Nonsense. I couldn't explain basic arithmetic to my grandmother. Love her to death but she wasn't exactly the brightest bulb in the box. Plenty of people are unwilling or limited in accepting explanations when they have their own ideas about something.

The debate went on for many centuries about if flight was possible too, Squirrel.
Sorry, argumentum ad ignoratum, argumentum ad antiquity and argumentum ad populace won't convince anyone.

 

For all practical intents and purposes, this is actually true, psychologically.

What is relevant about the past - or present, or future - is what you think about it, how you conceptualize it.

Ie. it's not some particular event in the past that is problematic (such as your parents beating you) or would need to be changed before you can "move on with your life."

What is relevant is how you conceive of the event - ie. whether you think "My parents beat me, therefore, I am a bad person and my life is worthless" or whether you think "My parents beat me, but this doesn't determine my worth as a person."

 

now your just being difficult..

i'm going to bed now..good night..

 

No, I am not. A quote is a quote, not a "This is what I interpreted out of something I read."

 

Obviously knowing what the future holds and not knowing what the future holds are two different 'initial conditions', we might say. So even in a hypothetical 100% hard-determinist universe (which there's no need to assume) events would probably evolve differently in the two situations.

If you somehow found out some negative future consequence of not doing anything (your child is going to have an accident or something), you would find yourself a whole different situation than you would be in if you didn't know.

How many 'factors' there are appears to be irrelevant. What is relevant is where causal influences are coming from. If some of the causal influences that shape future events aren't coming from the past, but from the future instead, as they would seem to be if we knew the future, then we have a situation where a causal loop might conceivably form. (Since nobody has a time-machine or a temporal-signaling apparatus, nobody really knows. It's all hypothetical.)

You seem to be assuming that the only way that Cyperium can know the future is with some giant science-fiction Determin-o-scope, a machine that observes all the variables in the universe's past and then cranks out how the universe is supposedly going to evolve in the future. (Never mind that it's seemingly impossible, this is science fiction.)

But what if Cyperium knows what the future holds, not by studying any number of real or imaginary past variables that supposedly determine the future, but rather by being informed by a communication that ostensibly comes direct from the future, one that might even have his own signature on it, warning him of some terrible future event.

Cyperium naturally responds to the message by taking steps to avoid the terrible event, and years later the day comes and goes when the future Cyperium supposedly sent the message, with nothing unfortunate happening.

So from at least one point of view, the "message from the future" must not of been a message from the future at all, since the events described in it never end up happening. But then who sent the message? A less fortunate alternate-Cyperium in a different timeline?

It's a little reminiscent of firing electrons through one of the slits in qm's two-slit experiment, and observing that electron's path being physically influenced, seemingly by the possibility that it might have gone through the other slit.

 

Yes, that is accurate.

For all intents and purposes, a ready-made prediction can't be done as it can't be made in the first place, not because of our difficulties in measuring all the states of the particles, but because we would have to measure the effects that the prediction itself has on the outcome. In other words, we would have to know the prediction before it was done so that we can take that into the calculations.

This would be true, if we had a ready made prediction of the future. It could also be true if those facts were actually existent in the future (which is highly unlikely - why would the universe go to such extent to prevent me? and that would be part of the prediction as well so I could easily circumvent it). What you haven't factored in, is the effect of the prediction itself.

Also, if I saw in the prediction that putting the Glock to my head wouldn't do any good then I wouldn't do it and then the prediction would, again, be false.

IF it would be accurate, yes. What I'm trying to show is that it can't be that accurate as it can't account for itself (which is my knowledge of it).

It's not my ability to thwart the prediction, it's the unability to make the prediction because of my ability to thwart it. If there is no prediction then obviously my future is still unknown to me.

Yes, I wouldn't change my premises.

What you are observing is simply discussion at different angles as I try to convince you of my idea. I'm trying different strategies to make you see what I mean. Obviously some of them will be far fetched but there's no way for me to know beforehand what you need in order to see what I mean.

There was never any problem with determinism, there was always a problem with the prediction.

If there is a problem with determinism, then it is unintentional on my behalf. The problem is that the prediction can't be made, not that the universe can't be predetermined. It can be as long as the knowledge of our own future isn't part of the determination.

 

Exactly. My idea simply states that knowing the result of the prediction would change my prediction and the prediction would have to have predicted that too.

But since it would have to have predicted that too then knowing the result of that would again change the prediction which would then also have to be taken into account.

But then the prediction would change again as I would come to know that prediction. This all happens before any prediction is made, and there is no way to break out of that loop before the prediction is even made, since the prediction is part of the future and I could always change it.

The only way for the loop to be broken, is if it finds a future after enough iterations of predictions (and the reactions to them) that I can't possibly escape which is impossible since I can always make minute changes to my future, like going one direction instead of another, or simply raising my finger when the prediction says I won't.

I think it's important to consider that this all happens before any prediction is made, and the prediction is impossible to make because of that.

 

No, we wouldn't in a deterministic Universe.
Yazuta is Incorrect, Cyperium, and so are you. I do not agree with Yazuta because he's essentially walking the fence on the issue.

The 'causal influences' that Yazuta mentioned do not come from the future if you make a prediction.

That you received the prediction, would be determined before it happened.
The receipt of it will make no difference on the outcome.

Yes, I have factored in the effect of the prediction, Cyperium... Sigh...

The Universe would go to no extent to stop you. The Universe would not have a desire to stop you...

The future is, in determinism, irrelevant. The Universe would not go to any extremes to stop you- the events that would prevent you would have already been determined which was why the prediction was made with the outcome that it was.
If you were to personally sit down and do all the calculations yourself, you would see an outcome that you could not prevent.
If you were told a prediction, you could try to prevent the outcome, but be surprised that somehow, you failed to do so.

You are correct in saying that you could not make a prediction that was false... But not correct in saying that you could not make any prediction.

This is true.
But, again, that prediction would not be made if you saw that it wouldn't do any good. Because if you saw that, it would become a major influence, that can be determined before it happens, and you would reach some other prediction. As stated above, not necessarily a new prediction of endless loopy madness, but a simple closure of seeing an inevitable outcome beyond your means of stopping. The only loop you might see is one in which you considered escalating your actions trying to prevent it and there followed a series of shenanigans until the loop closes upon an eventuality you could not alter and the final prediction would be that you would run the math, decide it was a fruitless exercise and go drink a beer.
Which would come to pass.

Your knowledge of it would be determined before you gained it, Cyperium. Gaining the knowledge, in a determined Universe, is not magical in nature. It's still cause and effect and still determinant.

You assume that you have the ability to thwart it.
We are in very close agreement here on part of this: That a prediction cannot be made if an outcome can be changed.

The only difference at this point is that the knowledge of that outcome can be determined: if that can be determined, there is no 'magical knowledge from the future' that cannot be determined.

I'm having the same exact problem.

One invariably must lead to the other. Whether the universe is determinant or indeterminant is not on topic and it's not a debate I'd choose to take part in easily...
It is not something we can say with reasonable certainty at this time.

But if we assume that it is determinant as an axiom for this topic, then a determinant universe must obey the physics that make it such.

This means that the knowledge of the prediction would be determinant.

This means that your reaction to it would be determinant.

It is at this point, a point of pivot- you claim that an alteration to that knowledge could alter the predicted outcome.

However, my claim is that if the act of gaining that knowledge is determinant and the reaction to it is determinant, the outcome must be as well.
Even if you had the ability to predict an outcome, your knowledge of it alone would not be enough to change it.
It would only be an influence, one that can be determined, and therefor not effect the outcome.

Yes, at this point it is fiction, but it's based on concepts that are not and the topic must accept certain principles as an axiom. Otherwise, we may as well chalk it up to Gods and Chaos...

Actually, I've covered that and that's a lot easier to deal with than if Cyperium personally performs all the calculations himself!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If Cyperium performs all the calculations himself, it becomes a lot easier to imagine an endless loop. However, the difference between our two arguments is that I'm saying that in a deterministic universe, the loops would have to be closed by an eventuality he would still reach by crunching the numbers.

My earlier stance was that preventing a determined outcome would not be so easy. Essentially, events beyond Cyperiums control or what have you, maybe as easy as him simply forgetting in time to stop said event would have been the determining factor that resulted in the prediction being made in the first place.

Let's not Over-Complicate the topic with Branes and alternate Universe and timelines... it will break down into Star Trek Voyager and that's not somewhere any of us want to go!!

Yazata... Sorry, I typed your name wrong earlier! I just realized that.

The reason the double slit experiment results are as they are; repeatedly; has to do with interference by the experiment. This is well established and while popular science articles and the Discovery channel won't necessarily explain all this, your use of the word "Seemingly" is spot on.
It makes no difference here and over complicates the topic.

 

how about your responsibility to check the source that i linked, if you did you would have seen that i copied it word for word....i said 'it said' (not i interpreted it to say)then linked it and copied what it said..now you are being difficult and acting like the punctuation police, and trying to obfuscate(correct usage?) the issue..
talk about petty..talk about not acting smart..you are more interested in pointing out others mistakes than you are in trying to understand what they are saying..how juvenile..

 

Apologies, Quoting from the Abstract of the article:

You glanced at just the abstract and grabbed a sentence out of it. Do you really consider that work?

This is not me obfuscating or being petty - You are not the Victim of Mean Ol' Neverfly. Obfuscating would be not doing any research and then attacking the person that said you needed to as a ploy to worm out of researching the topic by making the other guy seem less credible.

It is you being utterly unclear and then getting upset about someone telling you that you need to be clear if you're going to get involved in a pretty complex discussion.

You don't want to research.

You don't want to take the time to check your sources.

You don't want to link your sources or quote them properly.

And now you want to claim I'm responsible to do your research and your work for you?!

And you resort to insults to make that point after all that whining earlier about how you find words like "Delusion" and "Ignorant" offensive and insulting?

No.

Do your own work. If you want to post and get responses, you must deal with those responses holding you to a responsible and accountable standard. Look at Cyperiums posts and you will see he his holding me to the same standard I'm holding you to.
When I fail on it, I get called on it too.

No, you do not get to accuse me of insulting people when I point out established delusions with clear definitions (I was pretty harsh in how I worded it!) and then turn around and call me petty, juvenile and speculate about my motives for asking you to use established sources to support your claims.

The purpose of asking you to do so ensures that you must research topics, learn about them and support them well. It's like a parent making you brush your teeth; it's good for you. The purpose is not to trap you in an unreasonable quagmire of research so I can pull the wool over your eyes.
There would be no sense in that as any independent researcher would have the resources available to refute my arguments if I was out to trap you.

 

Continuation of the above post...

Squirrel, it's a real shame you didn't go into that article because you could really have slung it around.

I'm going to quote Popper from it here.

Popper clearly disliked Determinism.

With that material, you might have presented a case.

However, with further reading- all that breaks down... An intellectually dishonest person would have not mentioned that bit and only cherry picked quotes that would support his argument...

But reading further, we find that Popper had great difficulties explaining his Mind/Brain problem and resorted to speculating that Electro-magnetic waves were the "unseen force" that he required. Ironic as EM is still physics...

Popper admits in that last sentence that the topic is highly complex and difficult. Although bear in mind, this was said several decades ago...
The short of that is expressing opinions one invents off the top of their head probably isn't going to cut it. Those who research this are aware of the complexity.

Going onward:

In other words, if the mind is not an effect of the material and physical brain, then it would require some physical force in order to act on the brain...

In order to reconcile this, Lindahl & Århem essentially put forth the notion that the Objective mind is NOT a distinction between something material and immaterial.

Ironic as that's the basis of the abstract that you referred to (but did not quote) and in the end... your claim was unsupported by the article!

The rest of the article explores whether or not entanglement could be a factor in explaining the physical behavior of the brain and the apparent projection of the mind.

Not something I lend a lot of credence to, but a very fascinating article nonetheless.

Funny thing is, if you had simply read the article and quote mined it for support of your idea, I may not have known the difference until I got around to reading the article myself!

The final irony is that I did end up doing your work for you. Further still, since you put me in control of the article, I too, could quote mine it.

 

Yes. I think that I see what your point is. It's an interesting argument.

If you're handed a prediction and you know what the prediction's content is, then you can arguably do something to thwart that conclusion and prevent it from coming to pass. (Assuming that doing so is within your power, which we can stipulate for the sake of discussion.) If the prediction already takes into account your trying to thwart it, then presumably it would be a different prediction than it would have been otherwise, and would have different content.

But, the problem still seems to remain, because if you knew the content of the second prediction that already takes account of your trying to thwart the first prediction, you could arguably just do something to thwart that second one.

So we would need a third prediction that takes into account your trying to thwart whatever the second prediction predicts. But if the third prediction was the prediction that you were handed, then it would be the prediction that you were trying to thwart. In which case we would need a fourth prediction.

Presented that way, the argument does seem to generate an infinite regress. The calculation that generates the prediction would seem to have to either be infinitely long, in which case it would never halt and would never produce any definite predictive content, or else it would halt and spit out a prediction at some arbitrary iteration n. But no matter how aggressively the prediction's creators try to factor in all your attempts to thwart all the n - x interations of the prediction, if they proceed to hand you their n prediction, then that's the prediction that you have in your hand and you could arguably just do something different (n + 1) to falsify that one too.

It's an interesting and creative thought Cyperium. I like it.

(I sense some vague analogies to Cantor's diagonal argument and to the Liar paradox in this stuff, which I'll have to think about a little.)