4 ms·
> Sure, but that wouldn't prove you were from the future any more than it proved that Euclid was from the future. By that standard it doesn't seem like any sci
by travisjungroth 5y ago
> Sure, but that wouldn't prove you were from the future any more than it proved that Euclid was from the future.
By that standard it doesn't seem like any scientific or technological knowledge could prove you're from the future, either.
The only way to show you're from the future that can't also be explained by being from the present and having great knowledge/intelligence is to predict the unpredictable. But, you've narrowed the time constraint (a few weeks) and widened the range (a few years) so that predicting the immediate and unknowable isn't an option. Seems to be what you're going for also. So, I don't think you're left with anything.
- lisper 5y ago"Prove" is too strong a word and I shouldn't have used it. That's why the challenge is "convince", not "prove". But I don't think anyone ever even suspected that Euclid was from the future.
- travisjungroth 5y agoI think by those standards it would depend as much on persuasiveness as anything else. It seems really hard to differentiate between “from the future” and “from somewhere else more advanced”, especially with your constraints. Even if you loosen some of the constraints it’s hard. You could show up with a Jeep and some people would think you’re from the future and some would think you’re just from somewhere else. Even if your predict their future that may not convince someone! Predict an eclipse and they might say eclipses are predictable (of course, they’re right), predict the outcome of a battle and they’ll say you can see the future but that doesn’t mean you’ve been there.