The object is clearly a yellow pool ball. My first thought was that I had previously considered a billiard ball as a subject and while I do not own a billiard table, I do own a pool table. It struck me as rather odd that I should have chosen the yellow ball, of which there are many, as opposed to the white or black ball, which are singular. However, I pulled a yellow pool ball from the box in my garage and it appears to be identical to the specimen. Identical in every way. Under optical microscopy, every scuff, contour and scratch are the same. The only difference appears to be the enigmatic numbering, which is not by my own hand, unless I choose to disguise it in some way.
Undeterred, I ventured from my laboratory and accosted the first passer-by to meet my gaze, and prevailed upon him that he should write a 4 digit number of his own upon the ball. The result:
This differs from the ball which arrived only in the numbering, which is worn in places.
I
I asked myself why I chose the yellow ball to send back in time. I am not sure choice came into it.
Fascinating insight or, fascinating example of determinism ? Given the object's colour strikes you as possibly important and, how you resolved the number problem I can only encourage you to reflect further upon the matter in the hope that a causal explanation becomes apparent. Sadly,I can offer little help in the matter though I did once read a book on Daltonism as a child.I dare say a man of your inquisitiveness will discern something of import - possibly a coded method of communication along the lines of those traffic light systems perhaps ? Or, some other attempt to set up temporal telephony ?
ReplyDeleteThe causal line is clear. I chose to send the yellow ball back (preparations are in place) because it is the ball which arrived, and for no other reason. The only question is to what degree is this a result of blind causal process and to what extent is human agency involved. Quite literally I chose the yellow ball 'because I did'.
ReplyDeletePredeterminsm? Piffle. Clearly the object must arrive in the apparatus before it is written on, otherwise there would be a huge reduction in entropy. It may seem trivial, but 4 numbers consist of 13.2877 Shannons of entropy, so just consider the attendant change in enthalpy to make this occurence thermodynamically feasible. I shudder to think what happened in the realities where the stranger didn't write those numbers.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure you follow me, Cornelius. The ball arrived with the number upon it. It is the comparison ball which was already in my possession which I had the stranger mark. The strange thing is, I have now sent the ball in question back in time.I spent some time waiting, handling it occasionally, assuming it would eventually assume the worn numbering of the ball which arrived. It never did, so I sent the ball which had itself arrived. I still have the ball written on by the stranger in my possession. The ball which was sent today (and arrived several days ago) appears to be a sort of artifact of the device, endlessly looping. Which is, I suppose, the nature of a closed timelike curve.
ReplyDeleteAny chance of using your stuff to find this f*cker?
ReplyDeletehttp://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22/pdf
I fail to see the relevance of my research. Do you take me for some sort of crank?
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of creating a "Marty Mcfly" type reasoning error, I was thinking that as the planet will no doubt be soon discovered then if you could get your future self to send info on its whereabouts (or at least reduce the degrees of freedom of the search) to us we can be the ones to name it ("mutoidia"?). Probably less remunerating than lottery ball numbers but considerably more kudos.
ReplyDeleteThe causal line is clear. I chose to send the yellow ball back (preparations are in place) because it is the ball which arrived, and for no other reason.
ReplyDeleteสูตรบาคาร่า
โกเด้นสล็อต