Timeline for Is it possible to encode a message in such a way that can only be read by someone or something capable of seeing into the very near future?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
47 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Sep 20, 2019 at 20:59 | history | suggested | Captain Man |
Add extremely relevant precognition tag, remove unrelated light tag
|
|
| Sep 20, 2019 at 19:57 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 20, 2019 at 20:59 | |||||
| Sep 20, 2019 at 15:58 | history | edited | DoctorJerk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 20, 2019 at 15:44 | history | edited | DoctorJerk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 80 characters in body
|
| Sep 20, 2019 at 15:06 | comment | added | LSerni | How can you tell between someone that sees 0.1 microseconds in the future, and someone who simply answers with a 0.1 microseconds delay and sees that "future" once it has become present? You would need a message that cannot be copied in any way (not even by remembering it), so that once the future comes and the key is disclosed, the message is no longer there to be decoded by people who simply waited. | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 15:00 | comment | added | Chronocidal | @HAHarvey There are actually computer programs out there which allow you to construct and modify 4D structures like that. There have even been experiments testing people's ability to adapt to 4D mazes, as well as games exploiting the same scenario. | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 10:01 | comment | added | Jasper | @DoctorJerk At a quantum mechanical level, I think "the most probable future" causes more problems than it solves. For example, radiation wouldn't exist at all because for each atom, it's most likely it doesn't decay at any given moment. I think the lack of x-ray photos nicely shows how this filters into the macro-world in a very strange way. I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to predict all the weird effects this would cause at quantum mechanical scales. | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 6:34 | answer | added | csiz | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 20, 2019 at 4:47 | answer | added | Teleka | timeline score: 13 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 21:49 | answer | added | Kevin | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 21:37 | history | protected | Monty Wild♦ | ||
| Sep 19, 2019 at 21:16 | comment | added | MichaelS | Your 2D flipbook has the flaw that a 2D creature can still see all the frames of the book and get the same information, just not quite as soon. Bear in mind that the future-seer isn't suddenly 3D such that they can see inside the 2D shape. They're still 2D, but their time coordinate is shifted. (Here, nD refers to n spacial dimensions, with the presumption of a single temporal dimension attached.) | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 21:07 | answer | added | Gray_M | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 20:00 | answer | added | Razvan Socol | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 19:58 | answer | added | Silver | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:56 | comment | added | AJMansfield | Is it possible to use this precognition for retrocausal inductive brute forcing? E.g. tell your brute-force algorithm to try the first 100 possible keys. But using your precognition you can already see that output indicating that keys 1-100 don't work, so instead you tell it to try 101-200. But really, what you actually saw was the report from that run that everything up to 200 doesn't work, so instead you tell it to try 201-300... then when you reach keys 487832401-487832500 you see that it works and just let the computer do it for real. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 17:47 | answer | added | Aetherfox | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 17:41 | answer | added | Emilio M Bumachar | timeline score: 13 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 17:13 | answer | added | Bomaz | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 16:55 | comment | added | DoctorJerk | @Jasper Well, I did specify that what the super-observer sees doesn't have to be the definite future, just the most likely one. Not every collapsed wave function falls on the most likely outcome, though it might seem that way in retrospect. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 16:08 | answer | added | Sxubach | timeline score: 11 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 15:15 | comment | added | Jasper | I think Quantum Mechanics might be the direction to look in. Collpasing the wavefunction in the future by looking into the future is probably going to create a big mess. ?You might have to use some handwavium, but that's not entirely unwarranted when it comes to (some parts of) quantum mechanics interacting with things that violate the (currently understood) laws of physics. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 14:40 | answer | added | Chronocidal | timeline score: 21 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 13:04 | answer | added | richiec | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 12:29 | history | edited | L.Dutch♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed list formatting
|
| Sep 19, 2019 at 12:17 | answer | added | Chronocidal | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 10:21 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 19, 2019 at 6:35 | history | edited | DoctorJerk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 118 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2019 at 5:58 | comment | added | HA Harvey | By 3d sculpure, I meant those ones that are meaningless/formless untill you spin them or otherwise interact on a 3-dimensional (almost false 4d) manner. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 5:55 | comment | added | HA Harvey | Well, the flaw to the 2d flip-book analogy is that a 2d perception is still possible by viewing them in rapid succession on the same screen and you specify that it can't be something normals can cypher. Now, a 3d sculpure is a better analogy to what you want, but that involves making up something in this case as noone on WB SE is a 4th dimensional being so we can't actually percieve or describe something exclusivelu 4th dimensional. So, like Asimov, you will have to invent something like @L.Dutch suggested Asimov's Thiotimoline. And we can't help you brainstorm/create an imaginary substance. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 5:46 | comment | added | DoctorJerk | If something like that is possible, then perhaps there's a clever way to hide/encode/encrypt information in such a way that only being able to see it as you reveal it to your eyes, it loses a key piece or all of its meaning. I haven't excluded being able to use other senses while seeing into the future, if that helps. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 5:43 | comment | added | DoctorJerk | @HAHarvey It's a tricky problem, which is why I posted it. My reasoning is that, we three-dimensional creatures can draw a series of images on a virtually 2D plane which, separate and from a 2D creature's perspective, convey only a fraction of the total information. But, viewed from a third direction and seen in rapid succession, each image gives nebulous meaning to those before and after it, until you've seen them all, at which point a new piece of information can be surmised from the gestalt of both the action of flipping and observing each frame in sequence. (cont'd) | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 5:33 | comment | added | L.Dutch♦ | well done. Just saw it. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 5:32 | comment | added | DoctorJerk | @L.Dutch Deleted the duplicate | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 5:31 | comment | added | L.Dutch♦ | Posting the same question on multiple stacks is generally frowned upon. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 5:16 | answer | added | L.Dutch♦ | timeline score: 10 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 5:11 | comment | added | HA Harvey | Encoding that normals can get at if they are determined. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 5:11 | comment | added | HA Harvey | The edits make your question a virtual impossibility to answer. 1) this one is okay. 2) The only advantage your supers have that normals won't get 0.x seconds after your writer writes his message is the momentary glimpse of possible alternate futures which a) is useless for non-momentary messages and b) can only pass messages that can be read in 0.x seconds, after which, unless the writer writes the message for everyone to see, it's gone forever as it is no longer a possible future. 3) connected to 2, if they can't see both, then they're stuck with momentary messaging or (cont'd) | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 4:55 | answer | added | MacIsaac | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 3:48 | answer | added | dot_Sp0T | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 3:44 | history | edited | DoctorJerk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 116 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2019 at 3:31 | history | edited | DoctorJerk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 347 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2019 at 3:27 | answer | added | Salda007 | timeline score: 25 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 3:21 | comment | added | AlexP | Please clarify: (1) that the message needs to encoded as opposed to encrypted, that is, anybody who can see in the future can read it, not necessarily only somebody who knows a secret; (2) that this clairvoyance cannot be achieved by the simple expediment of waiting -- after all, if I wait 0.2 seconds I can see the future 0.1 second clearly. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 2:37 | answer | added | HA Harvey | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 2:29 | answer | added | Tim B II | timeline score: 75 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 2:11 | history | asked | DoctorJerk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |