[Guest]

There is no right answer for this, its just a thought provoking question, but:

You have created a machine which showes your future, with 100% accuracy, with the purpose of changing the future.

When you turn it on, what would you see?

Seriously think about this before reading my answer.

You wouldnt see the future. As long as we can only see the present, the future is set. The moment you see the future, you change the future, making what you saw, wrong, and since the machine is 100% accurate, it cant show a wrong image.

You will not see static, since it shows the future, not static.

Difinitive proof of which religion is correct.

If you are determined to change the future, then whatever it shows you will be wrong. So the only thing you can see is a definate inevitability, i.e. that you die. But you can change how you die, and when and even what happens after (buried or cremated) so it can only show you the immediate consiquence of your death. so if say christianity is right, (picking a religion at random) you would see heaven (cos if you see proof of heaven you will damn sure forget about changing stuff and try your best to make sure you get there, cos lets face it, its better than the alternative)

If no religion is correct then it cant show you anything.

feel free to pick holes in this and come up with a better answer.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Magic Leprechaun

[itachi-san]

You have created a machine which showes your future, with 100% accuracy, with the purpose of changing the future.

When you turn it on, what would you see?

I feel like you set this criteria and then try to set different criteria. Given the above, the machine would show you your future (i.e. you making a sandwich for lunch). So if you want to change that: let's say you would decide to go to McDonald's. So then if you look into the machine again you would see yourself going to McDonald's because that would be the future. It seems to me that the machine would show the future from a given present time, not a future without time, because the whole point is that the future can be changed. If you want to argue that the future cannot be changed and that everything is pre-determined, you are breaking the rules that you initially set.

[Brandonb]

I agree that the whole "The moment you see the future, you change the future, making what you saw, wrong...." However, that still doesn't mean that it wasn't 100% accurate. What it showed you was a 100% accurate "possible" future, not an "absolute" future. When you consciously then change the way things would happen, then you have altered the possible future which you had seen. Watch the movie "Next" it does a really good job explaining this. Though if the machine was supposed to show a 100% accurate absolute future, then the person watching would die right then. There would be no "...you can change how you die, and when and even what happens...." Because the only way the machine could predict a perfectly accurate future where nothing changes, is the future in which the viewer died right then, before they could change anything. So the machine would let you see what happens, but the second you stop watching, you'd be dead. A machine that shows the future without the viewer in it, then kills the viewer, not a very good trade-off if you ask me.

I wonder how long before this gets shipped to "others?" 3......2.......1.......

[akaslickster]

Well I would not turn it on because that would ruin the surprise. Don't you like to guess at life in the future?

Edited May 10, 2008 by akaslickster

[Guest]

I feel like you set this criteria and then try to set different criteria. Given the above, the machine would show you your future (i.e. you making a sandwich for lunch). So if you want to change that: let's say you would decide to go to McDonald's. So then if you look into the machine again you would see yourself going to McDonald's because that would be the future. It seems to me that the machine would show the future from a given present time, not a future without time, because the whole point is that the future can be changed. If you want to argue that the future cannot be changed and that everything is pre-determined, you are breaking the rules that you initially set.

The future is only set because you have no frame of reference by which to change it. If you were to make a sandwich and then decide to be clever and change the future, by not eating it, thats what you were going to do anyway, so you havent changed anything. However if you built a time viewer thingy and saw that you were going to be clever, that would give you the chance to think of something else to do changing the future. I havent broken any rules i set.

I like the possible futures argument though. i was thinking of time as a linear thing, restricting the time viewer to 4 dimentions, but multiple possible futures is a good idea, the kind of "what would have happened" thing. But then, would the machine just follow along that possible future, showing you what would have happened if you hadnt seen the future, or would it re-set when you turned it off?

[Guest]

The future is only set because you have no frame of reference by which to change it. If you were to make a sandwich and then decide to be clever and change the future, by not eating it, thats what you were going to do anyway, so you havent changed anything. However if you built a time viewer thingy and saw that you were going to be clever, that would give you the chance to think of something else to do changing the future. I havent broken any rules i set.

I like the possible futures argument though. i was thinking of time as a linear thing, restricting the time viewer to 4 dimentions, but multiple possible futures is a good idea, the kind of "what would have happened" thing. But then, would the machine just follow along that possible future, showing you what would have happened if you hadnt seen the future, or would it re-set when you turned it off?

If you look into the future, if you decide to change it, then that's what was going to happen anyways. Therefore if you look into the future with constant thoughts of changing it, then the constant change will trap the machine in this paradox and overload.

[unreality]

I agree that the whole "The moment you see the future, you change the future, making what you saw, wrong...." However, that still doesn't mean that it wasn't 100% accurate. What it showed you was a 100% accurate "possible" future, not an "absolute" future. When you consciously then change the way things would happen, then you have altered the possible future which you had seen. Watch the movie "Next" it does a really good job explaining this. Though if the machine was supposed to show a 100% accurate absolute future, then the person watching would die right then. There would be no "...you can change how you die, and when and even what happens...." Because the only way the machine could predict a perfectly accurate future where nothing changes, is the future in which the viewer died right then, before they could change anything. So the machine would let you see what happens, but the second you stop watching, you'd be dead. A machine that shows the future without the viewer in it, then kills the viewer, not a very good trade-off if you ask me.

I wonder how long before this gets shipped to "others?" 3......2.......1.......

I agree with what you said btw, Next was a good move... IIRC it starred Nicholas Cage, right?

[Brandonb]

I agree with what you said btw, Next was a good move... IIRC it starred Nicholas Cage, right?

Yeah, Nicholas Cage and Jessica Biel. BTW, What's IIRC?

The movie is all about "if you could see the future, then as soon as you see it would be, it will be different from what you had seen." There's a good twist at the end too I hope they make a sequel.

So it kinda differs the "Paycheck Paradox" w/ Ben Affleck, instead it addresses the OP very well.