51–60 of 63 posts
It seems to me like this should be something that can be done using continuations in Scheme. I tried writing the first example: (define x 1) (define t (now)) (display x) (at t (set! x 2)) and trying to implement now and at in a way that would behave correctly. I ran into a wall trying to implement it, because I don't think there is a way to define at that could reference the environment that t was defined in. Maybe a…
It seems to me like this should be something that can be done using continuations in Scheme. I tried writing the first example: (define x 1) (define t (now)) (display x) (at t (set! x 2)) and trying to implement now and at in a way that would behave correctly. I ran into a wall trying to implement it, because I don't think there is a way to define at that could reference the environment that t was defined in. Maybe a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Instantaneous data transfer with zero lag is theoretically possible through use of quantum entanglement. No, that's a common myth about quantum stuff. The entangled relationship can't be used to transfer information on its own. Whatever you sample from the "instant parts" can only be checked and understood after additional context arrives in a conventional way--limited by the speed of light and the flow of time. ht…
Ok human. You can read the Hans Moravec paper on CTC and time loop logic to understand Novikov self-consistency principle is formalized, yes you must run the computation for as long as it would have already taken or result will never arrive. 11 years ago I wrote some examples of how password cracking would look like using such setup. https://marak.com/blog/2013-05-13-time-loop-software I say through "through use of q…
Time loop logic is a hypothetical system of computation that exploits the Novikov self-consistency principle. In this system the computer is able to send the result of a computation backwards through time and rely upon the self-consistency principle to force the sent result to be correct. I've written about this before. Instantaneous data transfer with zero lag is theoretically possible through use of quantum entangl…
> I've written about this before. Instantaneous data transfer with zero lag is theoretically possible through use of quantum entanglement. I hope you wrote a correction wherever you wrote this. Quantum entanglement can not transfer information by itself (because of the no-communication theorem) therefore any data transfer protocol that uses entanglement must also use some other form of communication (e.g. classical c…
Now suppose that the first party resolves to go back in time and kill his grandfather unless the bits he measures are precisely the message he wishes to send. The universe can't tolerate the paradox, so it is corralled into the only non-paradoxical outcome: both parties read the desired message. Something like that, anyway.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/331119.331415
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3557566_ChronologZ_...
That reminds me of a funny presentation which is basically "if we engineered a bunch of exotic sci-fi concepts... what would the perl programs running on them look like?" More formally: "Temporally Quaquaversal Virtual Nanomachine Programming In Multiple Topologically Connected Quantum-Relativistic Parallel Timespaces... Made Easy!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORjyXcLDd9M
Looks like the YOW site and channel are down, but archived. The video is available at https://web.archive.org/web/2oe_/http://wayback-fakeurl.arch... , which I found via ( https://findyoutubevideo.thetechrobo.ca/ ), also a HN find. Not sure if there is a more ergonomic form for these archived video URLs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've written about this before. Instantaneous data transfer with zero lag is theoretically possible through use of quantum entanglement. I hope you wrote a correction wherever you wrote this. Quantum entanglement can not transfer information by itself (because of the no-communication theorem) therefore any data transfer protocol that uses entanglement must also use some other form of communication (e.g. classical c…
Maybe in general, but this is in the context of "time loop logic". Ordinarily, you can have entangled states where measuring both parts will produce the same (random) outcome. Unfortunately the outcome cannot be influenced by either party, so it's useless for communication, as you say. Now suppose that the first party resolves to go back in time and kill his grandfather unless the bits he measures are precisely the m…
Obviously these are rather different. In fact I feel like the entanglement doesn't even help in the time-travel protocol. If you want to send messages instantly and you can send messages back in time, you can "just" send yourself the message distance/c seconds in the past and send it then. Some messing around let's you arrange for it to arrive at exactly the time you want to send it in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've written about this before. Instantaneous data transfer with zero lag is theoretically possible through use of quantum entanglement. I hope you wrote a correction wherever you wrote this. Quantum entanglement can not transfer information by itself (because of the no-communication theorem) therefore any data transfer protocol that uses entanglement must also use some other form of communication (e.g. classical c…
Maybe in general, but this is in the context of "time loop logic". Ordinarily, you can have entangled states where measuring both parts will produce the same (random) outcome. Unfortunately the outcome cannot be influenced by either party, so it's useless for communication, as you say. Now suppose that the first party resolves to go back in time and kill his grandfather unless the bits he measures are precisely the m…
So it's a kind of circular logic, or at best an observation that having one kind of supernatural magic power would let you cause another kind of supernatural magic outcome.
In this case, if only I had a time machine I could break the speed of light. (Or possibly vice-versa.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok human. You can read the Hans Moravec paper on CTC and time loop logic to understand Novikov self-consistency principle is formalized, yes you must run the computation for as long as it would have already taken or result will never arrive. 11 years ago I wrote some examples of how password cracking would look like using such setup. https://marak.com/blog/2013-05-13-time-loop-software I say through "through use of q…
The salient bit from _Marak_'s article: Time-loop logic does not violate causality. We are able to retrieve the answer instantly because we have committed to spending sixty seconds in the future calculating the answer and sending it back. Maybe quantum superposition is just the universe compiling.
Then FTL communication opens up an enormous can of causality-worms.