3 ms·
Well, if time is somehow "leaky", if the barrier between future and present is not absolutely, 100% impenetrable, then it's quite a distinct possibility that a
by Florin_Andrei 10y ago
Well, if time is somehow "leaky", if the barrier between future and present is not absolutely, 100% impenetrable, then it's quite a distinct possibility that a future superintelligence would meddle into the affairs of its own past, perhaps with the goal of enabling its own existence.
Both general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to suggest that time is not perfectly linear (GR) and not perfectly crisp or perfectly clearly delineated (QM). Of course, there is a long way from these suggestions to time travel - but the thing is, you don't need time travel in the pop-sci sense. All you need is a "leak" of some interactions, however tenuous, from the distant future into the present. You only need to manipulate the states of a tiny number of particles in the brains and/or chromosomes of various creatures, affecting the wave functions of a few atoms and then allowing the effects to play out from there.
To be sure, this is very highly speculative, and I'm not suggesting this is what is actually happening. I'm just saying - if this, then that. Or, to put it in clearer terms, the conditions are:
1. Time is ever so slightly "leaky".
2. A vast, extraordinarily powerful superintelligence will emerge in the future, or humanity will in effect be that for all practical purposes.
It would be essentially the equivalent of God leaving biologic evolution and human progress mostly to their own devices, but once in a while putting his thumb on those respective scales. In this scenario, evolution would be a bipolar process: powered by the usual push of genetics, natural selection, etc at the bottom, but also informed by the pull of a future ideal at the top.
Going much further, kickstarting life, or even triggering the beginning of this Universe could also be targets of interest for manipulation.
- wyager 10y ago> Both general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to suggest that time is not perfectly linear (GR) and not perfectly crisp or perfectly clearly delineated (QM) Neither QM nor GR admit retrocausality. Even interactions that look time-inverted still don't let you send information back in time. I'm also not sure I agree with the idea that QM says anything is not "clearly delineated". Uncertainty relations in QM are less interesting statements than most people seem to think. It's not a matter of nature being inexact or something, it's just the fact that most physical operators don't share the same eigenstates. E.g. You wouldn't say a standing wave is "moving at x m/s" (because it's standing still), while on the other hand you wouldn't say "the wavelength of this point is k" (because points don't have wavelengths). But standing waves have wavelengths and point particles have velocities. Nothing in this description suggests to me that nature itself is inexact. It might be, but vanilla QM doesn't require it to be.
- phkahler 10y agoYou may enjoy "the end of eternity" by asimov