Predicting The Future

[Wetard89]

The short theory below is based on some of Einstein's thoughts along with a few other people and was developed when this idea was beat around in conversation one day. Could any of it be correct? lmao tell me what you think

 

What if the past, present, and future were all happening at the same time? What if the subconscious and conscious mind were separated not only in the thought but also time perception? Would it be possible to know your history from beginning to end but not be able to access it?

If time was occurring at the past, present, and future, it would be possible to think at all three levels. Ones subconscious state of mind never really perceives time since everything is happening at once and it is the only part of ones brain that can view time in all three levels. The way humans see time is in a conscious state from beginning to end in sequential order, one event to the next. In this state, one can remember events of the past and understand events as they occur but time to the conscious mind is going in order and therefore places an imaginary line between the past, present, and future.

A line, however, does not exist if the past, present, and future are all transpiring at the same instance. The subconscious mind is in this state with no boundaries, and is not restrained to only observe time in sequential order from start to finish. It’s a higher level of thinking but one can not to communicate the subconscious with the conscious mind, or at least not effectively. If one could concoct a way to communicate the two minds, would it be possible to comprehend the future?

 

-Shane

[Amod]

A line, however, does not exist if the past, present, and future are all transpiring at the same instance. -Shane

 

With a basic knowledge in Exponential Laws however this is possible,easily; that is predicting the past,present & future!

[Amod]

That is with the Universal Mind it's possible!

[CPL.Luke]

^the above doesn't make any sense at all

 

 

also quantum mechanics rules out predicting the future with perfect certainty, even if you did know everything about the universe you could not predict the future

[padren]

First Wetard, I do understand what you are saying and technically, I do think any individual exists in past, present, and future simutaniously.

 

However, who we are at any moment appears to be made up of our momentary mind, that only includes of sensory data and processed information from the present back.

 

While we can collectively call the entirety of our existance "us" or "me" it is almost a matter of symantics, as the closest "me" is to the past, is a memory in the present of what previously transpired, with no memory of what will occur.

 

Without some metaphysical "superself" or identity that is our entirety across time, then it is not possible through any known means to detect what occurs in the future.

 

If we are ever able to detect what occurs in the future, it probably won't be through transendental access to a "superself" but some sort of unknown extradimensional particle that radiates through time, with signatures that can be extrapolated to a source that gives us a picture of the future. Even then, we could not change what that future is, as it would change what was there to radiate the particles in the first place. When you think of a moment in time and say it "was" this and "is now" different because we read the future and changed it, you apply time over time, which would require yet another temporal dimension for the when things changed over time.

 

I have not heard of anything that could be a mysterious non-causal particle however.

[Edtharan]

The future can not be predicted. There is a simple experiment you can do to show this, coupled with simple extrapolation.

 

Ther is a system called Conway's Game Of Life (ther are many computer programs of it and are easy to find). The basic rules are:

 

Start with a chessboard like grid (of any size you like, but the larger the better).

 

1) If exactly 2 adjacent grid cells are active then leave this cell as it is.

2) If exactly 3 adjacent grid cells are active then make this cell active.

3) Any other combination of adjacent grid cells you then make this cell inactive.

 

What you do is apply these rules to each grid cell to work out what the board will look like for the next turn.

 

Now these simple rules produce a system that you can not predict the future of exactly. The only way you can determine the layout of the board at some future point is to run it through the rules.

 

Now, here is the experiment. Start with any board layout that you like and base a decission on the outcome of this (eg: to go down to the shops or stay at home). Choose a number of turns that you will perform to reach the outcome.

 

Choose a grid cell near the middle.

 

If the grid cell is active at the end of this then you will select the first choice.

 

If the grid cell is inactive then you weill select the second choice.

 

Run through the system for the number of turns you decided apon earlier. And act on the outcome.

 

Now here is why the future is unpredictable.

 

This system is completely deterministic, but unless you have gone through the system, you can not know wht the outcome will be. The fact that you actions have been based of this means that your behaviour due to this is deterministic, but unpredictable. Your actions will have a small influence on the universe (say the decission was to have a baby or not). This effect has set the future and it would be different than if it went the other way.

 

Now if you could "See: the future then it means that this system must have been run through and the outcome been determined. But, there must be some "Burning Edge" where this is occureing. A point where the outcome still remains to be dertermind.

 

The fact that such a system exists in the universe means that the outcome of the universe can not be predicted, even if it is completely deterministic.

[padren]

Now if you could "See: the future then it means that this system must have been run through and the outcome been determined. But' date=' there must be some "Burning Edge" where this is occureing. A point where the outcome still remains to be dertermind.

 

The fact that such a system exists in the universe means that the outcome of the universe can not be predicted, even if it is completely deterministic.[/quote']

 

I don't see how this leads one to conclude there must be a "burning edge" since our point of reference is always limited to one point in time at any given time.

 

In the "life game" example, each deterministic state is tied to and is the cause of the next state in the system, but the reason we don't know what the next state is, is simply because we are percieving time at a point there it hasn't been revealed yet.

 

That doesn't preclude the possibility that every causally linked state doesn't already exist in the future, it could just mean those states are outside our sensory range because our senses only detect input from a specific present moment.

[Edtharan]

I don't see how this leads one to conclude there must be a "burning edge" since our point of reference is always limited to one point in time at any given time.

Because the only way to see the outcome of a particular state of the board it to run the system. Thre is no short cut to the future of the system.

 

If you have future knowledge of the board state it menas that you must have run through the system to get it (and then rewound it back). This means that there has to be a point in time when the system is still running through it for the first time. This is the "Buring Edge".

 

In the "life game" example, each deterministic state is tied to and is the cause of the next state in the system, but the reason we don't know what the next state is, is simply because we are percieving time at a point there it hasn't been revealed yet.

Exactly my point. There will be a first run through it and the point at which tit is running through it for the first time can be called the present.

 

That doesn't preclude the possibility that every causally linked state doesn't already exist in the future, it could just mean those states are outside our sensory range because our senses only detect input from a specific present moment.

Because ther is no way that the system can know what the future is unless it is being run through, the only way this "Future State" can exist is if the system has already been run through at least once. Because it is deterministic it can be run through multiple times and the outcome known, but because it is deterministic there is no way that if it has been run through it can effect the outcome of any other run throughs.

 

The fact that such a system exists in our universe and can have an effect on it means that our universe is subject to these restrictions as well.

[padren]

Because the only way to see the outcome of a particular state of the board it to run the system. Thre is no short cut to the future of the system.

 

If you have future knowledge of the board state it menas that you must have run through the system to get it (and then rewound it back). This means that there has to be a point in time when the system is still running through it for the first time. This is the "Buring Edge".

 

 

Exactly my point. There will be a first run through it and the point at which tit is running through it for the first time can be called the present.

 

 

Because ther is no way that the system can know what the future is unless it is being run through' date=' the only way this "Future State" can exist is if the system has already been run through at least once. Because it is deterministic it [i']can[/i] be run through multiple times and the outcome known, but because it is deterministic there is no way that if it has been run through it can effect the outcome of any other run throughs.

 

The fact that such a system exists in our universe and can have an effect on it means that our universe is subject to these restrictions as well.

 

What if at the "moment" of the big bang (and I don't mean "moment" in time as we know it, but whatever existed above time in which such an event could occur and create time as we know it) time simply came into existance along with all the other dimensions?

 

In that "instant" all beings able to percieve time along the entirely of the timeline, would experience the "present" at once yet be sure their moment was the objective burning edge present.

 

What we call the "unfolding" of an unknown future would really be an illusion created by the fact that our memory state at any point in time is built upon the previous moments.

 

We can believe that it has to be "run through" to be determined, but does it really? Since time connects to future moments in a manner that leads to the next unknown state of a system, those connections can do what we cannot do mathmatically - lay out every state of the system from now to the end of time as a single static physical and temporal topography.

 

While I agree with you in as of much as the only way for us to know the next state is to treat the current moment as the "burning edge" I don't believe there actually is one - I think its an illusion created by our perceptions within any given moment.

[Edtharan]

What if at the "moment" of the big bang (and I don't mean "moment" in time as we know it, but whatever existed above time in which such an event could occur and create time as we know it) time simply came into existance along with all the other dimensions?

 

In that "instant" all beings able to percieve time along the entirely of the timeline, would experience the "present" at once yet be sure their moment was the objective burning edge present.

 

What we call the "unfolding" of an unknown future would really be an illusion created by the fact that our memory state at any point in time is built upon the previous moments.

 

We can believe that it has to be "run through" to be determined, but does it really? Since time connects to future moments in a manner that leads to the next unknown state of a system, those connections can do what we cannot do mathmatically - lay out every state of the system from now to the end of time as a single static physical and temporal topography.

 

While I agree with you in as of much as the only way for us to know the next state is to treat the current moment as the "burning edge" I don't believe there actually is one - I think its an illusion created by our perceptions within any given moment.

OK. Imagine that you take a photo of each Board in the Game Of Life example. You could now lay out these photos and see the "Future" state of the board. You cna even set the board up exactly as it is in one of the photos and running the simulation you can see the events unfold in exactly the same way again. However, this ability to "see the future" state of the board even after it has been run through can not effect the state of the board or anything contained in it in the rerun.

 

In this case you woudl be like the higher plane observer as you are not within the time line of the gameboard and can even see it laid out in a series of photos. But even so the system must have been run through at least once for you to be able to see it. You can replay it, but it still must have been run through.

 

Now things become tricky if you can change the outcome of the board in the reruns. What occures is that any interaction you make with the board constrains you to follow the cause and effect of the board.

 

So for instance, if you decided after you have run through it once, that you wanted to change the outcome (say a few cells were active and you wanted them to be inactive), then you could go back and change the board layout so that the cells you wnated inactive would remain so.

 

The problem arrises because you can not predict the outcome. This menas that when you change it you have to rerun the entire system again form that point on. Only then can you see if what you are attempting to do will succeed, and thus are you then restricted by the systems timeline, even though you are not within it (although you if it didn't work you could just go back and make more changes untill you got it right).

 

As soon as you interact with the system, you become part of the system and are subject to its limitations.

 

So even if these higher plane beings that are not subject to time existed, if they interact with anything subject to time, they themselves become subject to its limitations.

[YT2095]

Wetard89, with respect to posts #2 and 3.

you might want to check how well this "Universal Mind" worked here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21349

 

before you buy into this complete and utter Fantasy World of Amods.

[GutZ]

Wetard89' date=' with respect to posts #2 and 3.

you might want to check how well this "Universal Mind" worked here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21349

 

before you buy into this complete and utter Fantasy World of Amods.[/quote']

 

That was with the 50% shareware model though.....

 

 

*walks away laughing silently flipping a coin*

[reor]

Edtharan, why are you sticking to that weird system?

[Amod]

The short theory below is based on some of Einstein's thoughts along with a few other people and was developed when this idea was beat around in conversation one day. Could any of it be correct? lmao tell me what you think

 

What if the past' date=' present, and future were all happening at the same time? What if the subconscious and conscious mind were separated not only in the thought but also time perception? Would it be possible to know your history from beginning to end but not be able to access it?

If time was occurring at the past, present, and future, it would be possible to think at all three levels. [/quote']

 

Upon all these theories I state categorically that there is a way out to predict with certainty the past ,present & the future!

 

Don't worry!

 

Watch out Universal Mind Tutorials next:cool: