The Impossibility of Knowing Your Own Future

Cyperium, I have no idea what you just went off on there. Most of it was you reasserting your ideas while lending them no support.
Saying we can't because we can't is not a very effective argument.

The message, in your mind, is somehow frozen in time and in determination. You seem stuck on the idea that a message must be only in the present- forgetting the premise- A deterministic future is predictable. Why is that? Why do you think that a determined path will suddenly vanish from the universe if you read the message? Can you explain what process would make that happen?
Why is this?
Why have you not yet considered that the ONLY message that can be produced is a Determined Message, Cyperium?

You keep saying that the message would have to account for itself- I have already explained that this is done BEFORE the message is produced.
Determined by ALL the factors: means ALL the factors. Why do you keep forgetting that? Only One message can be produced because it's Determined. That includes your reaction to the message- Determined.
Any actions you might try to take and all influences on it- Determined.
One Message at the end, no more than one. Not an infinite number.

What part of ALL do you just flat out refuse to understand?

You have stepped past "misunderstanding" in that last post and stumbled right into "Stubborn denial."

Perhaps an internet forum is not the proper place. We've invented a wheel here and it just keeps going round and round.

Maybe you need to head down to your local college and ask a professor to explain it to you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I give them support. I'm saying we can't because the message would not only be infinite, but it would have to go beyond that infinity to reach beyond the message itself and whatever influences that the message itself has on the future (this of course have to be accounted for in the present as that is where we are doing the measurements and calculations of the future trajectories of all those things measured).

This is the logical foundations of my idea and how I'm trying to show you the idea through different viewpoints:

1) I stated that knowledge of the future is impossible as the knowledge can't prevent us from taking action that counters the prediction. <--- this was the first argument. You failed to see why and presented me with scenarios where the future would be as predicted anyway and I could never change it, however those scenarios - in my view - was insufficient to show that the prediction couldn't be changed. I argued (and still do) that whatever the prediction was, it could always be changed and hence not be a true prediction of the future. It's not hard for us to take action that depends on our knowledge, that our actions depend on our knowledge lead me to the second argument.

2) Since the prediction has to account for our knowledge of the prediction itself it would produce a infinite loop, the prediction would have to account for its own prediction. I didn't realise at this time that it would produce a message within the message, I got that idea later in order to further prove to you that the prediction has to account for our knowledge - as our knowledge of the future HAS a impact on it (as we take actions depending on our knowledge) and is a part of all the events that has to be accounted for.

3) So that lead me to the insight that the message could never be made in such a way that the full message was accounted for in the message itself - as when the process of predicting the future got to that point, then the prediction wasn't fully made and it is impossible that it could have been fully made.

4) I decided to follow your view of trajectories instead, in order to try to get you to see that the process of measuring it's own process of measuring would involve a infinite loop.


This is basically a outline of my arguments and how they relate to eachother. Please point out what's wrong with it, because if there is nothing wrong with it then my idea should be correct (with a small reservation for unknown arguments against it).

It is, the message once made available must be accounted for in the future as it exists there (it is in a way frozen in time). A message that can't account for its own future can't account for any part of the future that the message about that future can influence.

First of all; the premise that the deterministic universe is predictable is only to show why that premise must be wrong. We are exploring what would happen if it could be predicted - which I'm trying to show that it can't.

Second; it wouldn't suddenly vanish from the universe if I read it, it simply could never have been completed after that point that it has any influence on the future (when I read it). The process that makes that happen is simple, because the message isn't completed before it is completed, as such a incomplete message can't describe the completed message. At the point that I read the message the message has only accounted for as far in the future that I am when I read it (when it gets to that point in the future), yet I'm reading the full message. Because of this it can't account for itself, nor my reactions to the content (if I was reading about the future). It could account for my reactions to the past however (still in the future in the prediction process though) as that part of the message is known at that part of the prediction.

As I said above, it is because the process of predicting the future can't account for the completed message before the message was completed (the completed message is the one I'm reading at any time in the future after the message was made), the message is incomplete at the time it gets to the message.

I think the stumbling block is that all events follow time, we don't need to argue about all the trajectories in order to see that it can't be made, we just need to see that time always moves forward where events unfold, and that the events that account for the full message hasn't yet unfolded before the full message is completed. It is the full message that I'm reading - but the incomplete prediction (at the time it gets there) could only show a incomplete message - incomplete to the point that I'm reading it. As such anything I read about my own future couldn't be accounted for in the message - neither could my reactions to what I read be accounted for - as it doesn't have the full message yet - it is still in the process of making it, and it can only predict events from present to future - that is the way that events unfold in order to be predictable.

If we could predict the future, then YES. But I'm showing that there are limits to predicting the future - even in a determined universe, and those limits both start and end with our knowledge of it. This is not because knowledge is magical, but because they pose a natural limit where the message HAS to account for itself (that is what knowledge is after all).

How could we have accounted for the message before it was produced?

I'm showing that ALL factors CAN'T be accounted for, one factor must be the message itself and that is where we hit upon a infinite loop. We could ignore the message but only up to the point that we read it or that it otherwise has any implications itself on the future because then it certainly has to be accounted for.

ALL can't be included as a premise if ALL is impossible. I'm just showing WHY it is impossible.

That the universe is predetermined doesn't by itself prove that we can predict it. I'm showing that the process of predicting the future, at least the future of the subject that is shown the prediction, is impossible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since determined can mean "Knowing the future" it does not need to "strain itself."
A determined future is a determined future.
Again, I cannot help but think that you are thinking the message is somehow a Turning point. It isn't- it's a determined point.

True- knowledge itself cannot prevent you from taking action.
But also irrelevant. Before the message is written, the knowledge and choice you would make to counter the knowledge of said prediction would be determined.

Example- you say
Prediction: I will eat a mouse' head.
Choice: Not to eat a mouse' head and upset stomach.
Prediction failure! Account! Account- revise prediction!
Re-prediction: I will not eat a mouse's head after-all.
Choice: On second thought... I'm sure awful hungry-like...
Prediction failure! Account!
... thus your endless loop.

However, this is not the case in a determined Universe.
In a determined Universe, the future event that a message would be written would be SET since the origin of time as all the trajectories bounced their way, entropy- toward that inevitable result.
That you would read the message- getting the knowledge- would be set- since the origin of time.
Future events are SET based on unchangeable trajectories- they are set at the beginning and stay on route til the end. So TIME has no meaning in a determined Universe. It only has meaning to our perceptions. THere is no future event, no future for the message. To the message, the future and the past are the same. Timeless.
Your reaction to the message- Determined since the origin of time.
The result of your reaction- Determined since the origin of time.
Since all of these things are determined, the outcome is too. You would receive One Message only. It would show the determined trajectory only.
I can see WHY you think an endless loop would occur because you are thinking that whatever prediction you get- you can just change the outcome.
It seems to not occur to you, in spite of my pointing it out- the determination would be Reached- You would not necessarily have the power to Change it. Unless you have Free Will or Supernatural powers, Which I am fairly certain you do not have- there is a Great Deal beyond your power to change. And other factors may result in you failing to do what is in your power- either way any prediction that would thwart the prediction simply cannot be reached.

The analogies are very simple- Such as eating an apple or a mouse' head.

But in application, such a simple prediction would not ever be reached in any event. The message would contain a prediction of far greater magnitude and you wouldn't be able to stop it.

Jeez, I've been trying!
But I appreciate your vote of confidence... Even still I'm not smart enough as a source- If I cannot convince you, it certainly does not validate your idea.
It only validates my inability to convince you otherwise.

What is it exactly that makes you think it cannot account for it's own future?
Time is irrelevant to determinism- there IS NO FUTURE. Nor is there a past. I've outlined as clearly as I can how it does account for the deterministic result, including any attempt you may make to change it, before it prints out your message in the first place.
It's like you think it MUST print out a prediction before "it knows " how you will react to it. But "it does know" how you will react to it! How you will react was determined since the origin of time. Not just suddenly starting when you read the message.

It would have already influenced "the future" before you read it.

It has unfolded.
In a deterministic universe, as of right now- EVERYTHING that has ever happened in the universe and ever will happen in the universe- Has already happened. And all of it, til the end of time, has not happened. Irrelevant to time.
This is where you are missing the concept- Your reaction to the prediction Has happened- before you read the message.

We do not have to. We, in fact, even running the calculations, would not have to account for anything other than the mundane NUMBERS. The trajectories.

Then it's not deterministic.

Irrelevant. The message is accounted for. Your reaction to everything in your life, every song, every pain, every sentence stated to you- Is Determinant by the trajectories.
Assume you don't know the contents of a prediction, You WILL be determined to carry out a prediction and it will come to pass.
Now, assume you do know, you will only know a prediction that has your determined reactions to it in it. The calculation may be a bit more complex... maybe... but in the end, the only prediction printed out would be the one that would come to pass.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Even a determined universe have it's limitations on how much we can actually predict it. You seem to think that just because the universe is determined all what is determined must be available to us. Even a simple system can't be determined fully by us due to the uncertainty principle, even so the universe could be deterministic because of variables that are hidden to us. There is a theory that a particle does possess a definite position and momentum even though we can only measure one of them fully. This is a limit to our ability to measure them, but nonetheless, the universe could behave deterministic.

Still, just as we have names for physical processes we could also give names for the processes in the prediction. In other words; we could simplify it no matter the magnitude, so the magnitude isn't really a fundamental problem as long as it isn't infinite. Perhaps the message would have to be so obscure so that I couldn't possibly find anything that I could possibly change. Like the Nostradamus prophecies? But that doesn't sound very scientifical, but perhaps we would find that the message would have to be produced in such a way in order to prevent the message itself to affect the future. But then we wouldn't actually know everything about the future before it happened, we would only be able to deduce it after it happened that it was in fact predicted (similar to the Nostradamus prophecies).

I'm fully aware of this, I'm also aware that my ability of understanding what you mean can be flawed so it doesn't validate your inability to convince me. I'm pretty confident that I see what you mean though.

Yes, but that the universe is determined doesn't mean that there is a message of it, or that such a message can be made. It only means that it is determined, not that it is determinable by us. We could find evidence that the universe is, in fact, determined already from the start, yet we can also come to understand that we can't determine it ourselves.

And I understand that. But in such a universe, the message could not exist, so I couldn't have had any reaction to it, I'm only trying to show you why such a message couldn't exist - it has fundamental problems.

Even though everything is set, and time is of no relevence, the message would still have to be produced at some point in the universe in order to exist. We can't skip to when the message is already completed, and certainly not skip to that point if the process would be infinite (as I've shown that it is).

Do you see that the process of producing the message must be a part of the universe? It can't just magically exist without any process behind it. I'm showing that the process must be infinite. Because of that there would not be such a message at any point in the universe.

I can see that, but numbers can be equally hard to get at. We don't need to simplify it all the way down to the numbers in order to generalise about the impossibility of the concept. I've shown that there is a impossibility in producing such a message, that we take it down to numbers would only move the impossibility there as it doesn't break the concept.

My idea doesn't overthrow determinism. That it is deterministic doesn't mean that we can actually determine everything. My idea doesn't have any flaw within it that I can understand, so if determinism requires that everything must be able to be determined, then you're right, it's not deterministic. That the message exists would mean that it isn't a deterministic universe then. But I don't think that determinism must mean that we have the ability to determine everything.

It would have to be so complex that I wouldn't understand it. It would have to be so complex that I wouldn't, in fact, know the future.

 

Cyperium...

I'm disappointed.

All you just did was completely change the premise, enter in "Variables unable to determine..." and after explicitly stating all throughout the thread until that very last post- "assuming we are able to determine a deterministic universe" to "Well we can't really determine everything..."
You went from a hard determinism to a soft one, with excuses, in order to fit the premise around your conclusion.

Very disappointing, indeed.

 

Assuming that we can determine it causes the paradox, there is no change in the premise. I'm still only trying to show you why the knowledge of the future would make us enabled to change it - which is a paradox in a hard determined universe. The paradox is solved with our inability to make the prediction. There is nothing in my premise that assumes a soft determinstic universe. Show me where that is. I've always assumed the hard version of the deterministic universe (that's the one that has the problem), the soft deterministic universe says that some things could be changed - which isn't what my idea is - my idea is that it would still be impossible to change and this must mean that we can't come to know our own future - this is simply because we have the ability to change what we know about - the message of the future can't be made in such a way that we know about it but still aren't able to change it - it would have to account for our own knowledge of it.

In conclusion; there's nothing in the idea of a hard determined universe that inherently makes us enabled to make the prediction of our own future. Saying that I've changed the premise doesn't solve the paradox that would happen in a hard determined universe.

That said; if the universe is softly determined, then some things could be changed and there would be no paradox - we would be allowed to change what we know about our own future (allowing free will).

 

Yes, you did. You changed the premise to an inability to predict- after vehemently making it clear your intent was to show that even with a full ability to predict, the message creates a causal loop and is impossible. The point of the exercise is to show that the message creates the loop- even with perfect predicting. It becomes nonsense if you take away the ability to predict.

You clearly changed that premise NOW, in order to, I suspect, keep the pet hypothesis.
Which I suggested at the very beginning.

That you did not ask the question to ask it- but to have it validated for you.

When that didn't seem to be happening, you changed your premise.

It's ok... Let someone else hash it out with ya.

 

The message doesn't itself have a causual loop within it. The message has a version of it's own message to infinity. The process of making the message in the first place is what creates the causual loop (as we would always have to measure the process of measuring and plot that as well, not to talk about measuring the process of plotting and plot that as well).

==Read This:==
The easiest way to see this - which you have failed to show how it can be done - is to imagine that the prediction process would have to produce the full version of the message at the point in the future that I read it. But the prediction process has only predicted as far as I read it at that point.

The process of prediction has to predict the future event based on the event it is currently at, it can't skip the moment I read message to later fill in the contents of the message and how I react to it (as that part of the prediction hasn't been made yet).

The message in the future creates the loop in the process of creating it in the present. There is no causual loop in the future (only a loop to infinity of the message itself within the message - this is actually the result of the causual loop in the present). The causual loop is always in the present when producing the message.

The future (completed) message would have a infinite regress of its own message within it <--- this is impossible.

I'm showing you different views as to how the message is impossible, I'm also showing the implications of the message if the message itself indeed was possible. Which is that I would be able to change at least some simple things that were predicted about my future. What could possibly stop me from changing the things that I know that I would do, as portraited in the message? Wouldn't that require divine action?

Obviously the action of changing the future due to my knowledge of it can't be done in a hard determined universe. SO we are stuck with the situation that either the premise that the message can be made must be wrong or that the premise of the hard determined universe must be wrong. We just can't eat the cookie and keep it at the same time.

I've simply shown that the message can't be made. It is due to the fact that it has to account for itself. IF the message could be made (as the premise is) THEN it would create the possibility to change what is predicted. I'm simply showing why this isn't a contradiction as the message CAN'T be made (hence the premise must be wrong).

I don't understand what you mean by this. You did not ask the question to ask it? Validated for me? The point of this thread is to see if my idea holds water - which it has done so far.

You say: You couldn't change your own future even though you know everything about it. <--- you've failed to explain why - to me this is a paradox that comes about because we have as a premise that the message could exist in the first place. I'm just trying to show why that premise must be wrong.

It has been validated in many different ways (more than I would have thought when I started the thread). It is rather that you seem unable to see that it is validated, this makes me want to know why you don't see what I mean. My premise was only changed naturally as a consequence of the impossibility to create the message - and that the message could be created in the first place was the premise, if the premise isn't changed then the impossibility to know the future still remains as I could then change it. Clearly I must be able to show that the premise must be wrong - I'm not making a fairytale.

That's ok, it's usually the opponents that stay.

 

To see if your idea holds water - up until it doesn't and you change the premise. Premise changed -> claim it still holds water.

 

My idea has always held water (it is about the impossibility to know your own future after all). We can discuss this with any premise, but I can easily show you that both premises can't be present at the same time.

The premise is only changed due to physical law and not because I've been actively changing it. How can the message be produced in the present (that is when it has to be produced after all) if it must contain the full information of its own message in the future? It's easy to see that whatever the premises are, the message can't exist in a hard determined universe OR the message could exist in a soft determined universe (but then I wouldn't know the future as I could always change it and the message could only be about the most probable future). So one of the premises must be wrong.

If we change the premise then the only result is that we avoid the paradox, not that my idea is proven - if I can show that the paradox is avoided that way then you might see why there is a paradox in the first place (when both premises are present), as you have failed to see in the entirety of this thread.

 

A Question:
If the past is what is decided
and the future is what is not decided.
then what is the present?

 

The decision, based on your premises, but the past should be "what was decided" because we don't decide the past after the present.