The Time Traveler Test

[Peregrini]

The Time Traveler Test
I propose the following as a test for any alleged time traveler to prove their claim.
The layout:
Four sets of four numbers will be posted by two different posters, two sets each.
Then the same two, or if desired two new posters, will place the action symbols of +, -, x, / in place between the number sets, two by the first and one by the second.
We then have a mathematic equation that can be solved for an answer.
Here's the fun part.
The process:
Day 1 The time traveler claimant, having agreed to being tested, will post the "answer" to the equation that "will be posted over the next few days".
Day 2 The first person posts their two sets of numbers.
Day 3 The second person re-posts the original post and includes their two sets of numbers.
Day 4 The first person, or a new third person, re-posts the previous post and includes the first two action symbols, of their choice, after any two number sets.
Day 5 The second person, or a new fourth person, re-posts the previous post and includes either of the remaining action symbols in the remaining place.
Re-posting each time prevents any altering of the previous posts.
We now have an equation such as this;
1234 - 5678 x 9012 / 3456 = ?
At this time the answer given on Day 1 can be compared to the answer available on Day 5 and we "know" if we have a time traveler (or the other possibility, one hell of a psychic) or not.
The Reasoning:
Using the numbers 0-9, taken 4 at a time, order is not important, repetition is allowed gives 715 possible combinations.
These 715 combinations taken 4 at a time give 1.0798^10 number combinations. 10,798,000,000
Using any 3 out of 4 different actions on the number sets gives 24 permutations of the equation.
That is approximately 259 Billion possible answers.
Only a time traveler, who could go 5 days into the future, look at and solve the equation and return to day 1, would be able to post the correct answer.
Or as stated previously, one hell of a psychic.
If anyone were to pass this test I would, pretty much, believe anything else they told me.
If, of course, the time traveler makes the point that there are approx 259 billion timelines where each of the answers could be correct so, how would they know they were in the right timeline, is using a BS cop out and they are full of BS.

 

[Einstein]

The problem is you've picked out a scenario that only allows for one timeline to exist. Yet we all know from everyday experiences that we have freedom of choice for every action that we take. So I decided to check out and see if I really do have freedom of choice. Pick something to do that I normally would never do. So I thought about it and decided to put a different shoe on each foot. Went for a walk down the street. Everything went along smoothly without any consequences for choosing an alternate path through time. So it appears that alternate paths to the future exist for everyone to choose from. And that suggests that not even a time traveler can know which future will be. So just using simple reasoning, your test appears to be invalid.

 

[Peregrini]

Switching your shoes does not create a new timeline. Going "back" in time and changing an event that had already occurred would be an example of a new timeline. You go out wearing 2 black shoes... then go "back" and do it wearing 2 brown shoes... that would be a new timeline. Going "forward" to see the result of an event and then going "back" and engaging in the event is not a new timeline.
But, most importantly, I do not concede the existence of alternate timelines. There is no scientific evidence that they exist. There is no experiment to test for their existence. This "one timeline" in which we exist is evident. Everything that occurs, occurs in this timeline and once it has occurred, there is no undoing it. There is no reset button in life. There are no respawn sites. Alternate timelines, and the belief that everything that can happen will happen, is nothing more than an attempt at avoiding the moral consequences of the decisions we make in life. Like-it-or-not, you will have to answer for your decisions. Try this defense in court: "Yes Your Honor, the victim is dead in this timeline but, in an infinite number of other timelines, he is alive and well".

 

[Einstein]

I did my test with a gray running shoe on my left foot and a white tennis shoe on my right foot. That is something I would never do. It was a choice to see if I could take a different path into the future. By your line of reasoning I should not have been able to do that. Freedom of choice for your actions would not exist if there was just one timeline. So even if you don't concede the existence of alternate timeline, the facts dictate otherwise.

 

[PamelaM]

No time traveler is going to spend that much time doing an experiment like that. especially leaving and coming back.
I would ask something easier. something that doesnt require leaving the line.

 

[Peregrini]

PamelaM;
As far as the time traveler is concerned this test wouldn't take much time at all. He/she agrees to be tested... Travels 5 days forward... For arguments sake we shall say that takes 5 minutes. We don't know for sure but if it takes 5 days to travel 5 days into the future, that's not a very useful time machine... Looks at the equation... Calculates the answer... Another 2 minutes. Returns to day 1... Another 5 minutes. Posts the answer... 15 minutes all together. It will take "us" 5 days to know for sure. Perhaps the time traveler will hang out and post in some more discussions with us while we wait.

Einstein;

I did my test with a gray running shoe on my left foot and a white tennis shoe on my right foot. That is something "I would never do".

You obviously don't know "your self" very well, because you "did" do it.

By your line of reasoning I should not have been able to do that. Freedom of choice for your actions would not exist if there was just one timeline.

By my line of reasoning there is no reason why you can't do that.You're free to make choices but they will have consequences. Good or Bad. Actually, Freedom of Choice doesn't exist in a multiple timeline scenario. You don't choose to do something because you "will" do everything. No choice.

It was a choice to see if I could take a different path into the future.

You exercised Freedom of Choice by "making a choice".
Why do you think you took a different path into the future? Maybe that was the one you were supposed to take?

 

[PamelaM]

5 minutes? You don't know what you are asking.
Let us hope you hear from a very advanced civilization.
One that has the time machine for "fun and games." Or "shit and giggles."
One that has zero divergence and one that doesn't care if you
Ask him to leave and come all the way back through the universe again
Just so he can answer your question. One that doesn't have any accountability
To any type of commander nor has to submit any mission reports upon his return.
Sounds like fun. I bet they can't wait to get started. Especially when there is
Absolutely nothing in it for them.

 

[temporal recon]

Glad to see Mr. Peregrini has reappeared.
Judging by his statements, it appears Mr. Peregrini is an expert on things he does not believe exist.

Switching your shoes does not create a new timeline.

Going "back" in time and changing an event that had already occurred would be an example of a new timeline.

I would recommend you consider modifying your view and recognizing that the event happened before Einstein ever conducted his experiment. Of course, this requires an understanding that MWI is real and exists, which you do not, Mr. Peregrini, so you're a little behind the eight ball and basing your position on a false foundation.

There is no experiment to test for their existence.

This is not necessarily true.

As far as the time traveler is concerned this test wouldn't take much time at all. He/she agrees to be tested... Travels 5 days forward... For arguments sake we shall say that takes 5 minutes.

Stated by someone who doesn't believe in time travel, this statement is a little incongruous.

We don't know for sure but if it takes 5 days to travel 5 days into the future, that's not a very useful time machine

Funny. You made me laugh over here Mr. Peregrini.


Einstein,

I did my test with a gray running shoe on my left foot and a white tennis shoe on my right foot. That is something I would never do. It was a choice to see if I could take a different path into the future. By your line of reasoning I should not have been able to do that. Freedom of choice for your actions would not exist if there was just one timeline. So even if you don't concede the existence of alternate timeline, the facts dictate otherwise.

This is not necessarily true, but you DO bring up an interesting aspect of divergence and mission planning for time travelers.
Let me ask you, did you really undertake this experiment?
If you did, and it wasn't simply a thought experiment, did your decision to wear mismatching shoes result in anything? If your action did not result in anything of note (getting hit by a car, meeting the woman of your dreams, getting hired as some avant garde fashion consultant), then your choice did not significantly affect your world line or result in a new world line with a very large divergence. Simply stated, in a large-scale sense, it just didn't matter. (no offense).


I can appreciate your thought that this would create a new world line (and it did, it just didn't result in a large divergence). The reality is, world lines are created at the point of choice regardless of which choice you make. Interestingly, there are an infinite number of world lines with sufficiently tight divergences where your other yous exactly mirrored your choice because they had to who also wore mismatched shoes. Of course, let's leave alone the thought that it was YOU mirroring the action of another you, just as you must...Honestly, they are all you anyway.

 

[Peregrini]

PamelaM

5 minutes? You don't know what you are asking.

I did say; "For arguments sake we shall say that takes 5 minutes". How about if I use JT's numbers then, for accuracy. He said his machine travels ~10 years per hour. That works out to ~1.0138... days per second. So, my mistake. It will take 5 seconds. Not 5 minutes.

One that has the time machine for "fun and games." Or "shit and giggles."

I wonder if stopping off in 2000 to visit his family and post on the internet was on JT's mission protocol?

Ask him to leave and come all the way back through the universe again

No, just 5 days.
Please remember, this is a suggestion, not a requirement chiseled in stone. If an alleged time traveler doesn't want to take this test, that won't automatically refute their assertion. There are plenty of other ways to do that.

tr;
It really bothers you that you can't confute my argument, doesn't it?
You immediately begin with a personal comment.

Glad to see Mr. Peregrini has reappeared.
Judging by his statements, it appears Mr. Peregrini is an expert on things he does not believe exist.

I would recommend you consider modifying your view and recognizing that the event happened before Einstein ever conducted his experiment.

I'm not sure what "event" you are talking about here. The shoe experiment?

Yet we all know from everyday experiences that we have freedom of choice for every action that we take.
1st So I decided to check out and see if I really do have freedom of choice.
2nd Pick something to do that I normally would never do.
3rd So I thought about it and decided to put a different shoe on each foot.
4th Went for a walk down the street.
5th Everything went along smoothly without any consequences for choosing an alternate path through time.

This?

Of course, this requires an understanding that MWI is real and exists, which you do not, Mr. Peregrini, so you're a little behind the eight ball and basing your position on a false foundation.

But, basing your position on a purely hypothetical supposition that gives an understanding that the hypothetical supposition is real and exists is not on a false foundation? You are so quick to belittle someone elses position while never offering any substance for your own.
In that I am not a physicist, I have no problem standing on the foundations built and supported by real physicists. Who's foundation do you stand on? JT's? Oh, that's right...the Everett-Wheeler MWI. I have noticed that is a theory not a Law. There is a huge difference.

In his book, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific
"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."
— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

"As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here… In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is."
— George Ellis, Scientific American, Does the Multiverse Really Exist?
Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peregrini said: There is no experiment to test for their existence.

This is not necessarily true.

Really? Care to name one way...or do I have to buy your book to see it?

Peregrini said: As far as the time traveler is concerned this test wouldn't take much time at all. He/she agrees to be tested... Travels 5 days forward... For arguments sake we shall say that takes 5 minutes.

Stated by someone who doesn't believe in time travel, this statement is a little incongruous.

Believing or not believing in time travel has nothing to do with being able to propose a test for an alleged time traveler. I do not believe time travel into the past is or ever will be possible but that doesn't stop me from enjoying time travel movies or books. I enjoy seeing how authors avoid or work through paradoxes. In The Time Machine 2002 re-make the writers do a good job of keeping the traveler from causing a paradox. I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

 

[temporal recon]

I wonder if stopping off in 2000 to visit his family and post on the internet was on JT's mission protocol?

Not THAT is an excellent question, Mr. Peregrini. But of course, you don't believe time travel to the past is possible, so I suppose this little insight will be wasted. Anyone else care to take this question up?

Please remember, this is a suggestion, not a requirement chiseled in stone. If an alleged time traveler doesn't want to take this test, that won't automatically refute their assertion. There are plenty of other ways to do that.

But useless for your purposes? And this was the original reason for the other thread: what evidence would be enough for someone to accept that TT is real?

Glad to see Mr. Peregrini has reappeared.
Judging by his statements, it appears Mr. Peregrini is an expert on things he does not believe exist.

I would recommend you consider modifying your view and recognizing that the event happened before Einstein ever conducted his experiment.

I'm not sure what "event" you are talking about here. The shoe experiment?

that is correct

Of course, this requires an understanding that MWI is real and exists, which you do not, Mr. Peregrini, so you're a little behind the eight ball and basing your position on a false foundation.

But, basing your position on a purely hypothetical supposition that gives an understanding that the hypothetical supposition is real and exists is not on a false foundation? You are so quick to belittle someone elses position while never offering any substance for your own.
In that I am not a physicist, I have no problem standing on the foundations built and supported by real physicists. Who's foundation do you stand on? JT's? Oh, that's right...the Everett-Wheeler MWI. I have noticed that is a theory not a Law. There is a huge difference.

At least we seem to have come to a common understanding of the difference between proof, evidence and facts.

In his book, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific
"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."
— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

"As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here… In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is."
— George Ellis, Scientific American, Does the Multiverse Really Exist?

I wonder how many scientists believed breaking the sound barrier would kill the pilot? How many scientists "agreed" on man-caused global warming? Science is not built on consensus, Mr. Peregrini. Finding one, two or several dissenting opinions on a given problem set does not automatically invalidate the opposing theory.

Peregrini said: There is no experiment to test for their existence.

This is not necessarily true.

Really? Care to name one way...or do I have to buy your book to see it?

Wow, Mr. Peregrini. Google.com is really your friend here when conducting simple and elementary research.
I'm glad to see though in your statement, you didn't ask for "proof." At least we're learning, right? But, evidence does exist that points to multiverse, only one of which is presented here.
Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist
Are you familiar with brane-theory?

Peregrini said: As far as the time traveler is concerned this test wouldn't take much time at all. He/she agrees to be tested... Travels 5 days forward... For arguments sake we shall say that takes 5 minutes.

Stated by someone who doesn't believe in time travel, this statement is a little incongruous.

Believing or not believing in time travel has nothing to do with being able to propose a test for an alleged time traveler.

True enough

I do not believe time travel into the past is or ever will be possible but that doesn't stop me from enjoying time travel movies or books.

...or creating "tests" for any potential time travelers as well I see.
So let me ask you: if you do not believe time travel into the past is or ever will be possible, what use is the test then?
Are you saying you are willing to change your pronouncement?
I wonder, what evidence are you using to support your belief that time travel to the past is not possible?