Time binoculars (thought experiment)

[Blackpops]

This is a thought experiment that I have been thinking about since the pandemic started

What if you have a pair of binoculars that can show you the future you control what you whant to see whith your mind but you can only see one place and time at a time, making you semi-omniscient (you can see anything you whant but not everything at the same time) how whould you use it ? And assuming you are a few years before covid-19 how would you try to stop the pandemic?

Ps I have found that this binoculars are kinda useless when trying to stop a pandemic. I whould only use them to become a successful author and make money.

[Paul_Lamb]

If you see something in the future, are you able to change it? Or is it predestined?

IMO, the potential for paradoxes makes the latter difficult to consider seriously.

So, assuming the former, then you are really only seeing what would have happened if you hadn’t looked. The act of looking would necessarily change the outcome, and the butterfly effect would make that change more significant the further into the future you had looked.

Therefore, I think there are two ways I would use this type of tech.

One would be to learn lessons from history (except in this case, history which never actually happened). You could see possible outcomes of inventing AGI, for example.

Another way to use it would be to learn facts about the present that we are currently blind to. For example, are there other intelligent alien species in the universe? Or how to create a vaccine for COVID 19.

That said, were I to suddenly find myself in possession of such binoculars, I’m not sure I’d want to use them.

[CollinsEM]

I often consider a similar, but slightly different thought experiment. In mine, scientists discover how to create micro-wormholes that can be directed anywhere in spacetime. However the only thing that can traverse the wormhole is photons (electromagnetic waves).

In one scenario, I assume that only the present exists (i.e. a single slice of time), and therefore the wormholes only allow instantaneous communication. Despite this restriction, it nevertheless opens up the universe to human exploration through robotic surrogates, and eventually followed up by seed ships with biological specimens.

In the second scenario, I posit that the wormholes can also traverse time, but the photons can only travel forward in time. This in turn allows us to study our history in unprecedented detail by observing key events firsthand.

If we also allow for information to be broadcast back in time, then it seems like the obvious thing to do would be to set up an antenna at a specified location with instructions to broadcast critical information at the specific moment that the connection is to be made. Otherwise it would likely be very difficult to find any relevant information by just casting about randomly.

Yeah, so these are the kinds of things that float through my mind at various odd times.

[markNZed]

@Paul_Lamb

the butterfly effect would make that change more significant the further into the future you had looked

I think this is a common misconception of the butterfly effect. It does not claiming that every minor change produces a butterfly effect, it is a claim that some very particular changes that are very small can produce a butterfly effect.

This completely changes the notion. So for example if you have no significant impact on the future qualities you are observing, and you continue to have not effect on them, then it can play out just as you observed. Consider for example if you looked forward into what would happen in a small village in another continent and then did nothing with the information that reached that same small village.

One way to think about this is that there is a bunch of stuff we do that generates noise that has no impact because larger dynamics are at play. As a metaphor: if makes not practical difference that there are quantum states in a tennis ball while playing tennis. The ball follows a newtonian trajectory for all practical purposes.

To stop the pandemic we would need to know the cause of the pandemic and we don’t know that (yet). To severely limit the impact of the pandemic I think we only needed researchers that were well funded to find the most effective preventions and treatments from existing medical practices. So I would make a lot of money (by looking for very big market swings so I could then make large amounts of money “in the noise”). Then I would use that money to start an open credible research funding organisation and fund the publishing of irrefutable double blind peer reviewed studies ASAP. That would have taken many months but perhaps by August the treatments, that are well know by anyone following the literature, would be irrefutable. Then WHO and Western national health authorities would not be able to ignore the scientific facts.

[Falco]

@CollinsEM

However the only thing that can traverse the wormhole is photons (electromagnetic waves).

In one scenario, I assume that only the present exists (i.e. a single slice of time), and therefore the wormholes only allow instantaneous communication. Despite this restriction, it nevertheless opens up the universe to human exploration through robotic surrogates, and eventually followed up by seed ships with biological specimens.

In a materialistic interpretation of reality, wouldn’t it be possible to transmit someone’s consciousness through the wormhole, into the robotic body built for it at the other side?

[Falco]

@markNZed

I think this is a common misconception of the butterfly effect. It does not claiming that every minor change produces a butterfly effect, it is a claim that some very particular changes that are very small can produce a butterfly effect.

Isn’t that assuming that the universe absorbs enthropy without counter-effect? Doesn’t that negate the law of conservation of information? (I don’t know. I’m seriously out of my depth here. :-). )

@markNZed

Consider for example if you looked forward into what would happen in a small village in another continent and then did nothing with the information that reached that same small village.

But you cannot do nothing with that information.

For instance, at least you know now that there is a village on that continent, and what it looks like. This information is stored somewhere in your brain.

Even if that information does not result in any direct action from you, it takes room that is no longer available for other information in your brain. (An interesting thought experiment in itself). The information that would have otherwise some time be inscribed at that location, would very likely have a minute inpact on future decisions.

Also, the time you spent uselessly watching the village, would otherwise have been spent doing something else.

[markNZed]

@Falco

@markNZed

I think this is a common misconception of the butterfly effect. It does not claiming that every minor change produces a butterfly effect, it is a claim that some very particular changes that are very small can produce a butterfly effect.

Isn’t that assuming that the universe absorbs enthropy without counter-effect? Doesn’t that negate the law of conservation of information? (I don’t know. I’m seriously out of my depth here. :-). )

The butterfly effect is technically associated with the initial conditions of a system. Small changes can have major impacts in the long term. When you make small changes in a system that is already in a dynamic behavior then additional small changes may not actually have any significant effect. Most small changes do not lead to major effects.

@Falco

@markNZed

Consider for example if you looked forward into what would happen in a small village in another continent and then did nothing with the information that reached that same small village.

But you cannot do nothing with that information.

For instance, at least you know now that there is a village on that continent, and what it looks like. This information is stored somewhere in your brain.

Even if that information does not result in any direct action from you, it takes room that is no longer available for other information in your brain. (An interesting thought experiment in itself). The information that would have otherwise some time be inscribed at that location, would very likely have a minute inpact on future decisions.

Also, the time you spent uselessly watching the village, would otherwise have been spent doing something else.

You are misquoting me I wrote “did nothing with the information that reached that same small village” which is not the same as do nothing

The point is that you may not change the outcomes in the village. So for example if you were making a bet on the outcomes in the village, you could make a lot of money

[cezar_t]

@markNZed

Most small changes do not lead to major effects.

Actually if a system is chaotic it is guaranteed an infinitesimally small change will have a major effect in finite time.

[cezar_t]

@CollinsEM

In one scenario, I assume that only the present exists (i.e. a single slice of time)

Most likely that cannot be the case

According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

A unique slice of time would require absolute simultaneity, which doesn’t exist.

[david.pfx]

Believe it! That’s the butterfly effect.

And many biological systems exist on the edge of chaos, relying on feedback for stability. I am confident the brain is one of them.

[david.pfx]

@cezar_t

A unique slice of time would require absolute simultaneity, which doesn’t exist.

Can you expand on that, or provide a reference?

I proceed on the basis that the past is immutable, the present is chaotic and the future is uncertain but probabilistic. The inference is that there is only one present, but it is not a precisely determined slice of time or space. You cannot measure or copy quantum states.

QED is fully consistent with special relativity, but general relativity is incomplete because it cannot be reconciled with QED. You cannot reason from GR about quantum time.

[cezar_t]

I already linked the wikipedia page
Here-s an animation explaining it

Is Special Relativity Broken? ("Paradoxes" in Special Relativity: Train Paradox)

PS simultaneity relativity is concluded from special relativity not general.

[markNZed]

@cezar_t and @david.pfx how about staying on topic and answering the question in the original post. Or starting a new topic - even better a constructive topic!

[Paul_Lamb]

@markNZed

I think this is a common misconception of the butterfly effect. It does not claiming that every minor change produces a butterfly effect, it is a claim that some very particular changes that are very small can produce a butterfly effect.

I disagree, and would argue that your interpretation is actually the common misconception of the butterfly effect. There are plenty of others, but a good explanation of how chaotic systems works is Professor Sapolsky’s lecture on Chaos and Reductionism. The relevant part starts around 1:07:40 (actually that whole lecture is quite good).

@cezar_t

Actually if a system is chaotic it is guaranteed an infinitesimally small change will have a major effect in finite time.

^ this

Now I should say that I agree with you on the point that within human timescales and from a less granular viewpoint, changes in one random person would be unlikely to have much of an impact on major events in society within short, human timescales. The individual humans involved and the precise seconds in time for the events may shift a bit, but the events themselves (again, within short human timescales) are unlikely to change unless they happened to impact a key figure in the event in a significant way.

However, if you were to look closer, you would see individual-level changes starting to snowball almost immediately, and eventually at some point in the future, they would grow to have a major impact on society (regardless of which insignificant human was involved initially).

[markNZed]

I held your opinion too and not so long ago. So I can sympathize

[Paul_Lamb]

@markNZed

how about staying on topic and answering the question in the original post. Or starting a new topic - even better a constructive topic!

Thanks for this, BTW! I agree with this sentiment, and will definitely split off a new topic from here if needed (so don’t be afraid to discuss a tangential topic, and let me know if it looks like its time to split it off from this one).

I would say in this case so far, that these discussions might be relevant to the original post (so long as they don’t go too far down the rabbit hole), only because a serious answer to how one might use time binoculars to address the current pandemic does require some discussion on the possible impact of using such a technology. In particular, it would be important to know whether the future is predestined, and if not, how significant would the effect of seeing the future have on that future (to the degree that it might affect a potential response to the pandemic based on what was seen).

[Paul_Lamb]

To answer the original question, how one would use Time Binoculars to address the current pandemic, here are two ideas which come to mind:

1. We could look 1, 2, 5, 10, 50, and 80 years or so into the future to see if there are any long-term effects of Covid19 beyond what we already know (such as reducing life expectancy, etc). This would help with making cost/benefit analysis of political decisions now.

2. We could again look progressively up to 80 years or so into the future to see if there are any long-term effects of the vaccines (since the current solutions involve a new technology which hasn’t been used in vaccinating humans before). This would also help with cost/benefit analysis for vaccine prioritization, fast-tracking approval (or rejection) of vaccine candidates, etc.

These seem reasonable to me, because they are world population-level information, which is not likely to be significantly impacted by a butterfly effect in the timescales involved (any ratios of negative effects for a vaccine at scale, for example, are likely to be similar regardless of the specific individual humans or world political structures that are in place)

Examples of things we probably could not use the Time Binoculars to make decisions on (because of the butterfly effect) might be a particular world leader being taken out by the virus, specific timing of events in the stock market (other than perhaps in the very short term), changes in political structures, etc. The further into the future, the more likely these particular things would unfold differently.

When I use “we” above, I am referring to we as a society. The answers assume that if I were to find myself in possession of Time Binoculars, that anyone could use them, or that they could be used a large number of times (which would make it pretty easy to convince progressively more important individuals in society that they are real and can be used to affect public policy).

There is also an interesting twist to this thought experiment, though – what could I personally, as an unimportant human in the big picture, do to address the pandemic if I alone had these Time Binoculars (maybe only I can use them, say for only a limited number of times and not enough to prove they are real to anyone of importance). In that case, I would need to make myself a significant player.

For example, say I learned something drastic, like 25% of people who took the vaccine developed some form of auto-immune problem later in life. I might be able to use the Time Binoculars to play the stock market in the short term (though I think the butterfly effect would prevent this from being viable for extended periods of time). I would certainly use them to learn as much as I could about the cause of the auto-immune problem, and any solution to it that was found in the future, then devote a much time as necessary to immerse myself into that particular problem, publish as much as I could, to save as may people as possible.

[david.pfx]

Sorry, but this is science fiction. Foundation by Isaac Asimov [edited] would be a good example of how to develop the theme.

The only way to find out how the future turns out is to let the Universe compute it for you, in the fullness of time. As I said, the present is chaotic – every system of any complexity has its own butterfly effect(s). Predicting the future is like predicting the weather, only harder.

[Bitking]

That’s weird?
You mention the futility of predicting the weather yet every night there it is - the 10 day forecast. And that forecast is surprisingly accurate.

Think of how hard it must be to order supplies to stock a store when there is no way to predict the future.

[david.pfx]

So tell me the temperature and air pressure right now in your front yard, and what those figures will be at hourly intervals for the next year. I will accept a precision of 1 part in 1000.

Weather is an example that demonstrates my thesis: current conditions are uncertain and the future can only be predicted probabilistically. If you want the weather for next year, you have to wait and see.

The relevance to this thread is to ban recourse to the supernatural. If you invent things outside science, you invent gods and demons.