Those closed time loops are weird. I considered timeturing before outcome, but, yes, even in that case one can be told by one’s timeturned twin, that all is set up for good outcome. And timeturing after desired outcome… should be done unconditionally, as you can’t know it is not you who caused this outcome. Weird.
Definitely weird. A related consideration is that I would always give reasons for any advice I give my former self. That cuts off a large swath of potential stable loops that consist of me giving myself advice for absolutely no reason at all except that it happens to be stable. The better the reasons I have been given myself the less likely it is that the self perpetuating cycle is a completely arbitrary cycle.
For example, I wouldn’t have sent back “Don’t mess with time”. I would have sent “the universe doesn’t particularly care about your rules and plans you arrogant little git! What’s more likely, guessing your way through 128 bit encryption or something seriously nasty that distracts you from your games, such as ? That’s right. Think.” (Yes, I’d include the ‘arrogant git’ part. That is information I would clearly need to be reminded of!)
Now, not all scary situations give me the chance to write an explanation but a large swath of the probability mass does. While I would still follow the hastily written directive I would also know that to write that particularly message something really bad must be happening. Without having a predetermined policy for giving details I would have no idea whether the message meant something bad almost happened or not. (It also means that I am far less likely to get such a message—I’ll probably get one of the many possible detailed messages.)
The problem is that you aren’t source of advice, you are one of constraints to be satisfied. Any message, that you will reproduce with picometer precision and that will create stable state, will do. Precision isn’t a problem in deterministic world, and maybe in quantum one too (if our neurons are sufficiently classical), but I’m hesitant to estimate influence of one’s preferences on stable state.
The problem is that you aren’t source of advice, you are one of constraints to be satisfied.
I am both. The advice that I will choose to give is determined by the same physics that allows me to breath.
Regarding quantum effects—the uncertainty effects can be amplified based on the elimination of unstable loops. Most obviously when my behavior is determined by a quantum coin. The way that plays out looks seriously when pictured in 4 dimensions.
I read the link and make the same claim I made previously: I am both. The advice that I will choose to give is determined by the same physics that allows me to breath.
Wait a second, you will not choose an advice. You will reproduce the advice (consistency constraint!).
And for the advice to be advice you choose, it must be physically impossible to you to reproduce anything you think is not of your origin. I envy your self-esteem.
Edit: Given condition is sufficient, but not necessary.
I disagree with this statement. See earlier discussion of ‘idiot god’ by Richard.
Those closed time loops are weird. I considered timeturing before outcome, but, yes, even in that case one can be told by one’s timeturned twin, that all is set up for good outcome. And timeturing after desired outcome… should be done unconditionally, as you can’t know it is not you who caused this outcome. Weird.
Definitely weird. A related consideration is that I would always give reasons for any advice I give my former self. That cuts off a large swath of potential stable loops that consist of me giving myself advice for absolutely no reason at all except that it happens to be stable. The better the reasons I have been given myself the less likely it is that the self perpetuating cycle is a completely arbitrary cycle.
For example, I wouldn’t have sent back “Don’t mess with time”. I would have sent “the universe doesn’t particularly care about your rules and plans you arrogant little git! What’s more likely, guessing your way through 128 bit encryption or something seriously nasty that distracts you from your games, such as ? That’s right. Think.” (Yes, I’d include the ‘arrogant git’ part. That is information I would clearly need to be reminded of!)
Now, not all scary situations give me the chance to write an explanation but a large swath of the probability mass does. While I would still follow the hastily written directive I would also know that to write that particularly message something really bad must be happening. Without having a predetermined policy for giving details I would have no idea whether the message meant something bad almost happened or not. (It also means that I am far less likely to get such a message—I’ll probably get one of the many possible detailed messages.)
The problem is that you aren’t source of advice, you are one of constraints to be satisfied. Any message, that you will reproduce with picometer precision and that will create stable state, will do. Precision isn’t a problem in deterministic world, and maybe in quantum one too (if our neurons are sufficiently classical), but I’m hesitant to estimate influence of one’s preferences on stable state.
I am both. The advice that I will choose to give is determined by the same physics that allows me to breath.
Regarding quantum effects—the uncertainty effects can be amplified based on the elimination of unstable loops. Most obviously when my behavior is determined by a quantum coin. The way that plays out looks seriously when pictured in 4 dimensions.
Not necessarily.
Self-existing objects and auto-generated information in chronology-violating space-times: A philosophical discussion
I read the link and make the same claim I made previously: I am both. The advice that I will choose to give is determined by the same physics that allows me to breath.
Wait a second, you will not choose an advice. You will reproduce the advice (consistency constraint!).
And for the advice to be advice you choose, it must be physically impossible to you to reproduce anything you think is not of your origin. I envy your self-esteem.
Edit: Given condition is sufficient, but not necessary.
You don’t have to reproduce the advice. And if you don’t, you won’t have to.
That is important special case: the advice = no advice. But that is easy to overlook, thanks.