Poll: Is stealing an idea from the future wrong?
- Thread starter Leemaster777
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What you're describing is essentially the bootstrapping paradox.
To use a gaming example, take the Song of Storms from Ocarina of Time. Link learns the song as an adult from someone who learned it from him as a child. You then go back and play the song to the person who teaches it to you later. Where's the origin of the song? Who wrote it? How does it exist? If you go to the future and learn something and then take it back to the past, the origin of the idea will be destroyed. Depending on which set of the rules the Universe follows, that information will either be erased from your mind, since it could never have been learned, or it won't since you already know it and it's logically consistent. There's no way to know which ruleset is employed, since we can't test.
Physical objects, however, that are trapped in a bootstrapping paradox are much more complicated to think about due to entropy. If I find a jar and then take it back in time and leave it somewhere that my future self will eventually find and take back in time again, then that jar is in a loop. The loop should happen eternally, but the jar can't last that long. Eventually the jar will degrade to dust due to wear and tear, and the loop will be broken. Technically, from my point of view, that would happen instantly. Time loops involving physical objects can't occur from a perspective we'd find useful because the instant that one could happen it would stop and an entirely different set of circumstances would begin to unfold.
From a moral standpoint, I don't see the problem with stealing ideas from the future. I don't even think it would be possible to do so successfully. If you succeed in stealing it, the timeline prevents it from ever existing so you would forget it, but when you forget it the original creator will still create it, making it so that you can steal it again. If you don't succeed, then you get stuck in an endless loop of trying to steal it without knowing that you always fail, since the original inventor never loses the idea.
Causality is some timey-wimey shit.
To use a gaming example, take the Song of Storms from Ocarina of Time. Link learns the song as an adult from someone who learned it from him as a child. You then go back and play the song to the person who teaches it to you later. Where's the origin of the song? Who wrote it? How does it exist? If you go to the future and learn something and then take it back to the past, the origin of the idea will be destroyed. Depending on which set of the rules the Universe follows, that information will either be erased from your mind, since it could never have been learned, or it won't since you already know it and it's logically consistent. There's no way to know which ruleset is employed, since we can't test.
Physical objects, however, that are trapped in a bootstrapping paradox are much more complicated to think about due to entropy. If I find a jar and then take it back in time and leave it somewhere that my future self will eventually find and take back in time again, then that jar is in a loop. The loop should happen eternally, but the jar can't last that long. Eventually the jar will degrade to dust due to wear and tear, and the loop will be broken. Technically, from my point of view, that would happen instantly. Time loops involving physical objects can't occur from a perspective we'd find useful because the instant that one could happen it would stop and an entirely different set of circumstances would begin to unfold.
From a moral standpoint, I don't see the problem with stealing ideas from the future. I don't even think it would be possible to do so successfully. If you succeed in stealing it, the timeline prevents it from ever existing so you would forget it, but when you forget it the original creator will still create it, making it so that you can steal it again. If you don't succeed, then you get stuck in an endless loop of trying to steal it without knowing that you always fail, since the original inventor never loses the idea.
Causality is some timey-wimey shit.
One of the most iconic paradoxes, actually. In the aforementioned stable time loop nobody truly invented the technology, it owes its existence to...well, its existence. The other classic variation on it is that in going back in time to change an event you end up being the cause of it. As I said, fun.jpz719 said:
the problem with disrupting causality is that there's no way to know exactly how your actions will affect the events that led to you being able to do so
you'd have to test if you're actually forking the timeline or if you've just destroyed all of existence
you'd have to test if you're actually forking the timeline or if you've just destroyed all of existence
Well, no.
Due to the way that time works, if you travel to the future and learned a cure for cancer, then travelled back to today and made it into a monetary venture that takes the scientific community by storm, then the people in the future learned all this stuff from you. Which you then learned from them.
There's some really scary "auto-cannibalizing time-loop" stuff involved, but the "moral problem" you've posed isn't really possible.
Due to the way that time works, if you travel to the future and learned a cure for cancer, then travelled back to today and made it into a monetary venture that takes the scientific community by storm, then the people in the future learned all this stuff from you. Which you then learned from them.
There's some really scary "auto-cannibalizing time-loop" stuff involved, but the "moral problem" you've posed isn't really possible.
Time doesn't really exist, it's all math and logic, and in theory, you could determine everything that is ever going to happen if you had enough information. Time travel, is possible in the form of pure information (predicting exactly what will happen in the future), and therefore, you could in theory...with enough information.....determine a book that was going to be created in the future, and instead create it now. It should be mentioned that even that act, and the creation of the book at an earlier time, could also be predicted by someone who had enough information....and yet again, that person could then create the book even earlier.
There is nothing random in the universe, everything is happening in a logical order...so time travel, or predicting the future (or determining exact past events) is totally possible. Physically traveling through time requires the ability to change the universe to a previous template, or a future template based on predictions, and would require a massive computer.
There is nothing random in the universe, everything is happening in a logical order...so time travel, or predicting the future (or determining exact past events) is totally possible. Physically traveling through time requires the ability to change the universe to a previous template, or a future template based on predictions, and would require a massive computer.
Having an idea based on something that hasn't happened is a paradox.Leemaster777 said:
If you go to the future and come back with an idea that's it's own paradox.
If you changed the present it would result in a different timeline so that time line (and therefore the person you stole the idea from) would be unaffected.
it is only the present timeline version of that person, who is a different person because you came back with knowledge that changed the future, who would be effected, hypothetically.
If you want to use your time machine to make money just go look at the lottery numbers...
I think it depends on a few things.
Firstly, like most people have discussed it may depend on what version of time travel ends up being the correct one. Is it a many-worlds scenario, is it a stable time loop that somehow isnt bothered by paradox, or is it something else?
Secondly, after the first thing is sorted out I think it becomes a very base-level philosophy of ethics question. We're talking about for example if an action is immoral if there is technically no victim. Would it be wrong only if it causes harm, or is it an inherently wrong action? Thats a consequentialist vs deontological question.
Firstly, like most people have discussed it may depend on what version of time travel ends up being the correct one. Is it a many-worlds scenario, is it a stable time loop that somehow isnt bothered by paradox, or is it something else?
Secondly, after the first thing is sorted out I think it becomes a very base-level philosophy of ethics question. We're talking about for example if an action is immoral if there is technically no victim. Would it be wrong only if it causes harm, or is it an inherently wrong action? Thats a consequentialist vs deontological question.
Yknow... Im going to be keeping a close eye on lottery winners from now on.Mikeyfell said:
I'm going with yes.
Because let's face it, you stole this information and have basically no idea how it works, you just stole the plans and patented it so no one else can make it unless they pay you royalty. The person who would have created it might of lost their one big turning point in their lives (see J.K Rowling before Harry Potter and after) and we'd probably lose everything that would be created later by that person.
Because let's face it, you stole this information and have basically no idea how it works, you just stole the plans and patented it so no one else can make it unless they pay you royalty. The person who would have created it might of lost their one big turning point in their lives (see J.K Rowling before Harry Potter and after) and we'd probably lose everything that would be created later by that person.
In essence, yes, since by doing so you are altering the natural development of a society. Introducing a new technology before the society is evolved enough to use it responsibly can have disastrous consequences. Practically speaking it would be vital to consider what you would be bringing back and all possible repercussions such an action could have. A new fashion style introduced a couple years earlier is very different from bringing back and "inventing" a phaser for example.
So I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of harvesting future ideas/technology, but it would have to be handled very carefully. And I sincerely doubt most contemporary humans would be able to resist the temptation to misuse this.
So I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of harvesting future ideas/technology, but it would have to be handled very carefully. And I sincerely doubt most contemporary humans would be able to resist the temptation to misuse this.
I realise that. But it changes absolutely nothing. It is still wrong if a victim doesn't realise they've been stolen from.Qwurty2.0 said:
This. I feel really strongly that inventing, developing and making early mistakes with technology is a requirement to understand, respect and properly use it.krazykidd said:
If you gave the atom bomb to middle age societies the world would end within 20 minutes. If you gave the machine gun to ancient tribesmen a bloodbath would be immediate. You need the wisdom of work and testing to equip you with the wisdom to use technology.
"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds".
Without that moment to teach us the raw power of the atom i think we would be far more foolhardy (And dead) than we are right now. Sudden technology boost from someone elses work usually ends badly. Thats the entire plot of mass effect. Its a good lesson.
In my opinion it is wrong, it's stealing and by doing that the person from whom you stole might not even exist or end up living a worse life than what he originally deserved, but would i still do it? Sure, because i'm an evil selfish bastard and in the process i might even help other people depending on what i steal.
I believe that it's impossible to change the future by simple time-travel over there and steal a patent.
Regardless if the ultimate cure for cancer was found in the year 2014 or 2030 it would not change it to such a degree that it would be noticeable to the naked eye, think of it more as the difference would be to a closely resembling alternate dimension.
Basically the end would still remain somewhat the same. Even if you would for example be more drastic and bring a nuke into the past and blowup Germany in 1930. It would simply boost up the technological advancements (due to the fact of fear that such technologies even being a reality) to the point of today even if it avoided World War 2.
Regardless if the ultimate cure for cancer was found in the year 2014 or 2030 it would not change it to such a degree that it would be noticeable to the naked eye, think of it more as the difference would be to a closely resembling alternate dimension.
Basically the end would still remain somewhat the same. Even if you would for example be more drastic and bring a nuke into the past and blowup Germany in 1930. It would simply boost up the technological advancements (due to the fact of fear that such technologies even being a reality) to the point of today even if it avoided World War 2.
Well yes, because they DID have the idea. I mean, the thief didn't have the idea, that's the entire point. And the idea didn't just come from nowhere, it still from the future-person. They just had the idea in a timeline they no longer remember. But the thief remembers, and that's what's important. (None of that makes any sense of course, but that's time travel for you. If you want to talk about it, you've just got to ignore the paradoxes or the conversation stops before it can start)Leemaster777 said:
So yes, it is immoral, because it's still stealing. Although you could make the argument for the benefits outweighing that immorality. Like say, if you stole an invention that endlessly creates food with no energy cost. But that's a whole other discussion.
Huh, mass effect wasn't the first game that came to mind when i wrote that, i probably wouldn't even know what to say of slmeone asked me what the plot was. I was thinkig along the lines of Star ocean the last hope, when the protagonist indirectly blows up the alternate earth, by giving them tehnology too advanced for their time.BiscuitTrouser said: