Precognition vs Time Travel

[Rhidian]

Consider the following scenarios:

Time Travel-

The date is March 21st, and Mr. Burns discovers that his lotto ticket with the numbers 1,3,3,7 purchased on March 10th did not win the jackpot. The winning number was 1,2,3,4 instead. Mr. Burns time travels to March 10th, and purchases the lotto ticket with the numbers 1,2,3,4. Mr. Burns returns to his present time (March 21st) to reap his winnings from the now-winning lottery ticket.

Precognition-

The date is March 10th, and Mr. Burns is about to purchase a lottery ticket. He looks 11 days into the future (March 21st) and sees that the winning combination will be 1,2,3,4. In his present time (March 10th) Mr. Burns purchases a lottery ticket with the numbers 1,2,3,4. 11 Days later on March 21st he finds that his ticket wins and reaps the winnings from his lottery ticket.

Why should Time Travel be used when Precognition avoids all of the causality paradoxes plaguing Time Travel and can work just as well?

[Skyler4856]

Well, both methods would involve some form of interaction and would edit the scenario, albeit by a little. For this very reason (I known, run-on sentence) it's likely that precognition would present its own paradoxes.

There is also the fact that precognition without interaction isn't possible.

[Rhidian]

Precognition could be approximated by a super computer running an incredibly advanced simulation of the future based off what is most likely to occur. With Big Brother collecting tons of data about personal habits and Science itself describing how the rest of the world works, it's not too big of a stretch to think that such a super computer would be possible far into the future (ignoring all of the hacking and privacy issues such an object would entail).

[christok]

Precognition could be approximated by a super computer running an incredibly advanced simulation of the future based off what is most likely to occur. With Big Brother collecting tons of data about personal habits and Science itself describing how the rest of the world works, it's not too big of a stretch to think that such a super computer would be possible far into the future (ignoring all of the hacking and privacy issues such an object would entail).

Didn't you just describe a regular brain?

[Rhidian]

Not really. I did just describe the Minority Report though.

There's very little difference between Prediction and Precognition. We try to predict things all the time. The difference between the two is a matter of scale (and sources of data).

[Red Iron Crown]

Just as many causality problems with precognition as with time travel, they're effectively the same thing. Sending information back in time (precognition) is not all that different than sending matter back in time (time travel).

[Skyler4856]

Precognition could be approximated by a super computer running an incredibly advanced simulation of the future based off what is most likely to occur. With Big Brother collecting tons of data about personal habits and Science itself describing how the rest of the world works, it's not too big of a stretch to think that such a super computer would be possible far into the future (ignoring all of the hacking and privacy issues such an object would entail).

That's not true precognition. Such a computer would either have to violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; in order to perceive a completely accurate describe the world it would have to know a particle's EXACT position and EXACT velocity in order to describe EXACTLY how certain systems evolves, or the computer couldn't be asked certain questions.

[Winter Man]

I liked the way that Philip K. Dick story got around it, with a giant telescope so powerful it could see into the 'previous' iteration of the universe, just slightly ahead of 'now'.

[Rhidian]

That's not true precognition. Such a computer would either have to violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; in order to perceive a completely accurate describe the world it would have to know a particle's EXACT position and EXACT velocity in order to describe EXACTLY how certain systems evolves, or the computer couldn't be asked certain questions.

That's why I said that it is an approximation. The closest real-world analogy to my example is how Weather forecasting works.

[vger]

Well, both methods would involve some form of interaction and would edit the scenario, albeit by a little. For this very reason (I known, run-on sentence) it's likely that precognition would present its own paradoxes.

There is also the fact that precognition without interaction isn't possible.

If, for instance, you looked into the future and saw you were going to die in a car crash, you would decide not to go for a drive that day. But now that you have made that decision, the future you saw in your vision never happened, so... how did you see the vision in the first place?

[Starwhip]

I think the answer is that you would entirely forget. Or the universe explodes. Something to remember is that time is entirely relative.

Read the book Timescape. It has some interesting time-travel theories, including this one: Say you were to make a machine that can send a message back in time to turn itself off. But if it was off, it could never have sent the message. So, time is stuck as it fluctuates toward one scenario and then the other.

[Skyler4856]

If, for instance, you looked into the future and saw you were going to die in a car crash, you would decide not to go for a drive that day. But now that you have made that decision, the future you saw in your vision never happened, so... how did you see the vision in the first place?

Bingo

(10char)

[KerikBalm]

Thats why some shows get around it by having people view "one possible future"

You know, parallel universes, exponentially increasing in number with each interaction (either at the quantum level, or a less well defined level based upon the decisions of conscious individuals).

Thus many possible futures exist for any given time... of course in such shows its typically only 2 (despite the disclaimer), the one that will happen if the "vision" is ignored, and the one that will happen if the "vision" is followed.

Or its only 1 - the one that happens while trying to avoid it (as in Oedipus Rex)

[Rhidian]

If, for instance, you looked into the future and saw you were going to die in a car crash, you would decide not to go for a drive that day. But now that you have made that decision, the future you saw in your vision never happened, so... how did you see the vision in the first place?

At the instant right before Precognition occurs, the Future has you dying in a car crash. The Future seen via precognition is that future. Immediately upon taking that information to the present time (the moment after Precognition is used), that Future is no longer relevant as the Future has changed.

If Precognition is used a second time, the Future you would see would be one where you don't die in a car crash, as in that particular Future you took measures to avoid death. The first future has ceased to exist, but that doesn't matter since it didn't change the past. The information you received through your senses have changed your actions.

For a non-abstract example of this same concept, consider a person planning a picnic. At the time they are planning the picnic, they think the picnic will be held under sunny conditions. However, as the picnic is being finalized the person sees in the weather report that there is a 90% chance of rain for the next five days. This information, which did not exist prior to seeing the weather report, has changed the plans for the picnic. One moment the picnic is being planned for sunny weather, the next moment rain is being taken into consideration.

Truthfully though, the 'how' of such a phenomena could occur is detracting from the original question. Assuming Precognition or Time Travel is possible, why would Time Travel be used when Precognition can accomplish many of the same effects without the paradoxes?

[Red Iron Crown]

Truthfully though, the 'how' of such a phenomena could occur is detracting from the original question. Assuming Precognition or Time Travel is possible, why would Time Travel be used when Precognition can accomplish many of the same effects without the paradoxes?

Because similar paradoxes exist. Precognition is not like predicting the weather, weather predictions always have room for error no matter how good the model. Precognition is direct observation of the future, which implies that it is not malleable. If you then act to change it and it works, it is obviously malleable. Paradox.

[Rhidian]

So then there would have to be a distinction between two different types of precognition: one that takes the precognition itself into account, and the other that does not.

In the first one that takes the information gleaned by Precognition into account when showing a specific future, then Mr. Burns would see himself winning the lottery with numbers 1,2,3,4. Yet such a view of precognition completely ignores free will; what if he doesn't really want to win the lottery (due to other issues afterwards)? This itself would run afoul of paradoxes really fast.

The second version (the one I am basing my arguments off of) is more inline with the multiple possible futures theory. Take Schrodingers Cat; if a future shown via precognition doesn't take the act of precognition itself into account (ie what would have happened if you didn't look into the future), then you would be able to see two possible futures; one where the cat dies, and the other where it lives. You could take a hammer to the box and make the question a moot point anyways, but that would be a consequence of free will. If free will exists (and thus the ability to act on information gleaned by precognition), then it's impossible for there to be a single immutable future (which, in turn, would allow this type of precognition work).

[N_las]

At the instant right before Precognition occurs, the Future has you dying in a car crash. The Future seen via precognition is that future. Immediately upon taking that information to the present time (the moment after Precognition is used), that Future is no longer relevant as the Future has changed.

So immediately upon taking information to the present time, this information becomes useless, because the future will be different. Now the precongnition is as useless as a guess.

[Rhidian]

So immediately upon taking information to the present time, this information becomes useless, because the future will be different. Now the precongnition is as useless as a guess.

How likely would it be for me choosing 1,2,3,4 instead of 1,3,3,7 for my lottery ticket to change what the winning ticket numbers will be?

[Red Iron Crown]

The second version (the one I am basing my arguments off of) is more inline with the multiple possible futures theory. Take Schrodingers Cat; if a future shown via precognition doesn't take the act of precognition itself into account (ie what would have happened if you didn't look into the future), then you would be able to see two possible futures; one where the cat dies, and the other where it lives. You could take a hammer to the box and make the question a moot point anyways, but that would be a consequence of free will. If free will exists (and thus the ability to act on information gleaned by precognition), then it's impossible for there to be a single immutable future (which, in turn, would allow this type of precognition work).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

For precognition to work usefully, the future must be immutable as otherwise, as you say, there are many possible futures. If the future is immutable, precognition gains the observer no advantage as you can't change the events that lead to that future.

If the future is not immutable, than a precognitive observation is just one of many, many possibles, so it's not reliable enough to base decisions on.

So an accurate precognitive observation that allows the observer to change future events is a paradox.

[N_las]

How likely would it be for me choosing 1,2,3,4 instead of 1,3,3,7 for my lottery ticket to change what the winning ticket numbers will be?

So, in case of the car crash, in the moment i get the information, the future will be changed? Or will it only be changed if i base a desicion to drive or not drive on that day?

If the future is changed in the moment i get the information, than that will ruin your lottery, because a changed future is a changed future. It has nothing to do with choosing 1234 or 1337 having any effect.

If the future is only changed because i decide to base a descion on the information, than that will create all sorts of paradoxes.

And you said, that the precognition only shows one of many possible futures. So I will just see a random lottery number, because all numbers are possible. I can't win the lottery with that.

Edit:

The second version (the one I am basing my arguments off of) is more inline with the multiple possible futures theory. Take Schrodingers Cat; if a future shown via precognition doesn't take the act of precognition itself into account (ie what would have happened if you didn't look into the future), then you would be able to see two possible futures; one where the cat dies, and the other where it lives. You could take a hammer to the box and make the question a moot point anyways, but that would be a consequence of free will. If free will exists (and thus the ability to act on information gleaned by precognition), then it's impossible for there to be a single immutable future (which, in turn, would allow this type of precognition work).

Or are you saying, one can see every possible future? Than I will see a future where 1234 is winning, one wherer 1337 is winning, one were 9999 is winning... and million more possible futures.

Edited March 31, 2014 by N_las

[Rhidian]

Going off of the ideas in this thread, for paradox free (and useful) precognition, it would have to work as follows:

1. Only things or events that have a 100% of occurring in the future can be seen, regardless of whether it is known ahead of time or not (immutable parts of the future)

2. Things that can be changed or in other words not having a 100% possibility cannot be seen; this takes into account the possibilities of the precognition itself having an effect

This form of precognition would not have someone seeing themselves perish in a car crash (unless it was unavoidable), as they could still take measures against it and thus change that part of the future (not 100% chance). They could however see winning lottery numbers in the event that those wouldn't change regardless of how much that information is spread.

This would also solve the problem of concurrent users which often plagues Time Travel. Two or more people using the power at the same time would be limited to seeing the same things which cannot be changed, regardless of what others might do.

Of course the drawback to such precognition is that its usefulness is highly curtailed. The events that are seen cannot be changed, though with the power it would be possible to modify preparations and/or response to such events. Best example would probably be of a meteor falling to Earth with a 100% chance. It would be impossible to stop the meteor from falling, but preparations can be made (evacuations, etc) that make its aftermath not as bleak.

[Red Iron Crown]

It would be interesting if time worked that way, i.e. some things inevitable, other things not. What would be the determining factor between such events?

Another possibility might be a malleable future with some sort of statistical analysis done on the possible futures. I may not be able to know for sure that I'll be in a car accident tomorrow, but if I know 95% of the possible futures involve me crashing I have a pretty good idea of what to expect and might be able to act to make one of the other 5% come true.

[N_las]

Going off of the ideas in this thread, for paradox free (and useful) precognition, it would have to work as follows:

1. Only things or events that have a 100% of occurring in the future can be seen, regardless of whether it is known ahead of time or not (immutable parts of the future)

2. Things that can be changed or in other words not having a 100% possibility cannot be seen; this takes into account the possibilities of the precognition itself having an effect

That could work, but how is decided what events are 100% occuring? Is there a predetermined destiny list written by god? This would limit the free will of at least some people. Imagine the Lotto numbers are 100% destined to be 1337. Some force now has to forbid me to call the lotto studio at the time of the number drawing, and fake a bomb thread, thus stopping the lotto numbers from beeing drawn.

And if this 100% events are predestined on gods list, since when are they on the list? I mean: If the lotto numbers are destined to be 1337, was every aspect of human history since the stone age somehow shaped to lead some people to invent the game called lotto? So these people coulnd't have had free will.

I am fairly certain one can not find a consistend set of rules that allow such 100% occurences to exist.

[Aghanim]

I think the answer is that you would entirely forget. Or the universe explodes. Something to remember is that time is entirely relative.

Read the book Timescape. It has some interesting time-travel theories, including this one: Say you were to make a machine that can send a message back in time to turn itself off. But if it was off, it could never have sent the message. So, time is stuck as it fluctuates toward one scenario and then the other.

Well the universe could split itself when the machine received a signal to turn it off

Going off of the ideas in this thread, for paradox free (and useful) precognition, it would have to work as follows:

1. Only things or events that have a 100% of occurring in the future can be seen, regardless of whether it is known ahead of time or not (immutable parts of the future)

2. Things that can be changed or in other words not having a 100% possibility cannot be seen; this takes into account the possibilities of the precognition itself having an effect

This form of precognition would not have someone seeing themselves perish in a car crash (unless it was unavoidable), as they could still take measures against it and thus change that part of the future (not 100% chance). They could however see winning lottery numbers in the event that those wouldn't change regardless of how much that information is spread.

This would also solve the problem of concurrent users which often plagues Time Travel. Two or more people using the power at the same time would be limited to seeing the same things which cannot be changed, regardless of what others might do.

Of course the drawback to such precognition is that its usefulness is highly curtailed. The events that are seen cannot be changed, though with the power it would be possible to modify preparations and/or response to such events. Best example would probably be of a meteor falling to Earth with a 100% chance. It would be impossible to stop the meteor from falling, but preparations can be made (evacuations, etc) that make its aftermath not as bleak.

There is such thing as asteroid deflection

[Rhidian]

Precognition would (and should) work better on events closer to the present, as there are less factors that could change what is seen. If I am in an orchard and I look 2 seconds into the future, I might see an apple falling from a tree across from me. No matter what I do within the two seconds, that apple will still fall. Consequently, if I tried looking 1 hour ahead into the future and see the apple falling, I would have much more time to walk up to the tree and get the apple down (thus changing the seen future).

Future events will tend towards 0% or 100% probability as they come closer to the present (hitting 100% when it occurs, or 0% when it does not). The further you look into the future, the less likely you are to see 100% probability events.