First, a bagatelle-like structure which rolled the ball towards the device along a board via a series of pins arranged to give an approximately 0.1 chance of reaching the portal. I gave up after around 800 attempts. Trials carried out away from the machine saw the ball leave each of the 10 exit trajectories with roughly equal probabilities. Do the maths yourself.
Secondly I attempted to trick my wife into using the machine. I say 'trick' because I felt it was important that she knew nothing of the procedure, so I withheld crucial information. Unfortunately I left my scribbled notes nearby, which she read, and refused to help. At what point does one give up and decide that something is impossible? What is the difference between 'couldn't' and `didn't'?
This does bring to mind an often quickly dismissed solution to the riddle of the Aspect experiment, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought-experiment made flesh. All the paradoxes of quantum mechanics vanish if one accepts that there is only one way the world can be, that the actions of every observer of every quantum system are predetermined. This would be interesting as it would mean that the `possible' is an illusion, an artefact of human thinking. Perhaps Quine, in his Two Dogmas, threw out the wrong half of the disjunction; perhaps all truths are necessary, logical and analytic.
Bring on the metaphysicists; I'm a simple scientist.
It's all terribly odd, knowing that at some point in the future I will travel in time and post comments on my blog. You'd think it would be a source of encouragement, and initially it was. But now I just can't seem to summon the will to work on the project. I'm already sure of its success.
Although I haven't really got anywhere in the practical side of things, I've taken a keen interest in this project. The key seems to be tricking someone else into using it when finished.......
ReplyDeleteYou could, but from your perspective they would almost certainly meet with death and I'm rather afraid that our criminal justice system would hold you responsible, notwithstanding the fact that they survive in a parallel universe. My attempt at subterfuge was simply to find a way of introducing the test object into the Deutsch Loop.
ReplyDeleteI was just wondering whether your future self's posts are proof of your success or proof somebody you know's success.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. You mean someone might be posing as the time travelling `me' and posting here? In fact, they needn't even be a successful time-traveller at all. A sobering thought.I will change my password immediately.
ReplyDelete" What is the difference between 'couldn't' and `didn't'? "
ReplyDeleteI suggest that in the case in hand we have a third possibility namely, "ought " It is clearly not fashionable to use such a morally anthropocentric human term but, the universe may indeed act as if it "ought not be allowed " ... Strangely enough , I'm sure this raises all manner of indeterminate terms needed to make determinations ... Reminds me of a dream I had once (or maybe many times) involving Kurt Godel arguing with a Lilliputian quantum theorist about the nature of something or other ... eggs may have been involved ... "Have you ever considered laying the egg on it's side to crack it open ? " Muttered one of them, " Obviously we are not able to determine cup design " came the reply ...
TV was invented during this conversation so I never got to hear the end ...
Indeed. Yet, the idea that normativity is anything other than a human invention, or perhaps adaptation, is almost anathema to me. It seems that 'ought' implies a moral injunction, an attitude of approval or disapproval. By what mechanism does an impersonal universe forbid that of which it disapproves?
DeleteI must concur that a moral higher order arbiter is not a corrective that sits well with my own perusing ... but, it may be possible to redefine "ought" using a probabilistic many world framework wherein ought simply becomes a matter of odds or, even a random output. Thus somewhere betwixt nought and one comes ought ... I'm not sure if this amounts to a linguistic sleight of hand or, if it offers a new form of statistical utilitarianism ? Perhaps you can find a decent future textbook to help see whether such a notion gained any traction ?
ReplyDeleteMuch though would love to travel into the future to answer this fascinating question, Everett Scattering renders this highly dangerous, and dangerous on a meta-probabilistic pan-multiversal level. As it happens I was about to write a post on this phenomenon.It's one of the chief limitations of non-entropic time travel devices.
ReplyDeleteYes, whilst Everett may have believed the mathematics strongly supported quantum immortality, it would perhaps be an act of great hubris (indeed worthy of a Darwin Award par excellence) to conduct such an expedition.
ReplyDelete