Two psychics foresee meeting each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who

[Enola.Grey]

I though I would mix this one up. Think you can answer. I have an idea, but let us open this up for debate?

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

in order of which is more likely to start the conversation:
ExFJ
ExFP
Exxx
INTJ
ISTJ
ISFJ
INFP
INFJ
Ixxx
INTP

----
was that supposed to be difficult?

now, to make you divide by zero:
could an all powerful being create a situation in which he isnt all powerful?

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

I though I would mix this one up. Think you can answer. I have an idea, but let us open this up for debate?

also - whichever one that starts the conversation in their forsight would start it when they meet.. thats like a given..

 

[Cognisant]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

The one who speaks first.

That's the wonderful thing about precognitive psychics, cause & effect becomes recursive, i.e. my answer may seem banal and probably an intentional misinterpretation of your question, but actually I'm positing that whomever starts the conversation (in the way you meant), will probably also be the first to speak when the two psychics meet.

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

Why, if they both know what they will say, should they re-enact it? So I say neither. They already had the conversation psychically. Why should either bother showing up?

 

[Auburn]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

If they both already foresaw the conversation, then they should have also foreseen who would be the first to speak, right?

And I suppose if we assume this is a legit prophecy, and legit psychics, then neither of them could avoid it from happening even if they wanted to, and would know this - so they would both comply to carry it out even though they know the outcome already.

 

[jachian]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

So then whats the point in meeting each other?.................

Whats the point in having a conversation if I already know how it going down?!.....

The meeting and conversation already took place as far as am concerned.

 

[Decaf]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

The conversation is started by the one that is more deluded than the other into believing they are a psychic.

 

[Enola.Grey]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

HA HA HA HA

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

now, to make you divide by zero:
could an all powerful being create a situation in which he isnt all powerful?

You know how PCs can use DosBox to emulate Dos programs? Yeah... kinda like that

 

[Chronomar]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

The one who speaks first is the one who didn't speak first in the premonition. They disliked the way the conversation went in the premonition, so were determined to change the course. I'm not sure if this would cause some sort of time-stream issue. Probably not.

 

[Bennett]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

My point of view as a maths student:

Well, first of all assume that said conversation was non-empty (i.e. at least one of them had something to say, and they both knew what would be said). But this conversation would be pointless as they both know what is going to be said, and will therefore choose not to say anything. Hence, the conversation would therefore be empty.

This is a contradiction to initial assumption, so from 'proof by contradition' we can conclude that neither psychic says anything in this "conversation" (neither in their psychic vision or in their actual meeting), so neither speaks first.

 

[Darby]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

My point of view as a maths student:

Well, first of all assume that said conversation was non-empty (i.e. at least one of them had something to say, and they both knew what would be said). But this conversation would be pointless as they both know what is going to be said, and will therefore choose not to say anything. Hence, the conversation would therefore be empty.

This is a contradiction to initial assumption, so from 'proof by contradition' we can conclude that neither psychic says anything in this "conversation" (neither in their psychic vision or in their actual meeting), so neither speaks first.

well, would they not have seen that there was no conversation? the OP said they knew the meeting would take place, and what the conversation would entail, but if there was none, then it would be as they saw it, the conversation would exist, just at a value of zero.

OR

they both see the conversation, but at the point where it changes within reality(say nobody talks but before they saw that they did), their memories of the premonition change to match. That way, at the present, everything would coincide, and in the past everything would coincide, and the future is something else entirely.

 

[Bennett]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

well, would they not have seen that there was no conversation? the OP said they knew the meeting would take place, and what the conversation would entail, but if there was none, then it would be as they saw it, the conversation would exist, just at a value of zero.

OR

they both see the conversation, but at the point where it changes within reality(say nobody talks but before they saw that they did), their memories of the premonition change to match. That way, at the present, everything would coincide, and in the past everything would coincide, and the future is something else entirely.

The first I'd say. What I was trying to get at is the whole concept of forseeing a conversation then having it is self-contradictory, unless nothing was said. Therefore nothing ever changed; when they meet each other they know they will say nothing and indeed say nothing, otherwise I believe the premise is logically impossible (assuming of course psychics even existed ).

I think it's much like paradoxes surrounding time-travel, the only way to think about it is to step out of the loop and consider whether or not everything can exist as a self-consistant continuum or not.

 

[Words]

The first who foresaw. foreseeing = talking.

 

[ashitaria]

The results are extremely relative, there is no definite answer. It first of all depends on whether you are extravated or introverted, and yet, the extroverted is not always the first person to speak.

 

[wadlez]

Solution 1:

Psychic number 1 would go "ok im going to meet this dude and ask him how his day has been" he then instantly knows what the other is going to reply. Knowing the reply to that question he would form another question to begin with, and again instantly know how the guy will reply. Each time he see's the conversation the beginning and content will have to change.
This will repeat over and over for both partys. Since the conversation is due to take place at a certain time, lets say in 30 minutes, both partys will cycle over possible conversations in there heads untill the time the real conversation takes place, they will then have a conversation of which they have not experienced as the conversation is now occuring in real time.
So basically whoever, just like any conversation between 2 normal people.

Solution 2.

Since both partys know the answers to each question they could ask they have no interest in carrying out the conversation as an exchange of information. Rather they have a little conversation anyway so the situation is not awkward, so answer again would be just whoever

Solution 3
Your mum

 

[Jah]

But if they do not have the conversation, they cannot have foreseen it, since it never will happen.

They might as well have dreamed up the whole thing.


Consider seeing something in the future, then having it not happen; You didn't foresee it then, it would be called imagining a possible outcome.
(correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[wadlez]

If you can see something is going to happen in the future you have the ability to change it. So psychics (which dont actually exist) would be seeing the outcome of events if they do not interfere.

 

[imchristinak]

if two psychos foresaw the conversation, it must happen otherwise they wouldn't have seen the conversation (no matter how many infinite combinations of conversations they would end up having, it's gotta be one of them and if they don't carry on the conversation they were having, then it didn't happen?) and if they didn't see the conversation (remaining silent is not a possibility because a conversation imo should have consist of exchanges in words and thoughts), then this riddle wouldn't be, and if this riddle wasn't then why I am typing an answer?

I would say the extroverted one.

 

[imchristinak]

If you can see something is going to happen in the future you have the ability to change it. So psychics (which dont actually exist) would be seeing the outcome of events if they do not interfere.

if you could change the future then you haven't seen the future.

 

[Saeros]

As soon as you see what's going to happen, what's going to happen should also change. So, a psychic vision would be constantly changing. thus they would get trapped in a psychic vision 'loop', have a seizure and neither of them would show up. Of course this all depends on the rejection of the concept of determinism, in which they are guided by some force that would lead them to having the conversation anyway.

 

[anemian]

They wouldn't have realized that they forsaw the event until after it happens. Therefore the prediction would have very little effect on the real event.

I would also say that predicting a meeting and conversation is well within the probability of "real" predictive-i-ness-ability. After all your subconscious only needs to brain fuck your conscious parts of your brain with past known information to derive a repeatable pattern. After all having boringly real enough dreams will eventually insure that some of them line up "eventually".

On a side note it's always hilarious when you realize you or someone just went through the motions of something you did in your dream.

 

[JUN]

No one starts the conversation first because they are psychics, and there is no such thing as foreseeing, hence they never foresaw anything and have no idea about what will happen when.

/thread.

 

[Toon Scheur]

There are too many variables here at play:
If both psychics want to retain their psychic powers, they have to carry out the conversation they way they foresaw.

It could be an evil encounter where the hero will perish eventualy (because he foresaw it). Example:

P1: Hello
P2: G'day
P1: What's up?
P2: I'm rigged with a motion sensor and a mic. If you make the smallest sound, a signal will trigger a bomb strapped to your family.
P1: I'm a psychic too and I foresaw that. This signal jammer will take care of things.
P2: You mean that signal jammer that was bought at my brothers store and tweaked to fail?
P1: Yep! That one that I've repaired just before our meeting.

etc etc. This could go on forever because both knows the outcome. But we won't find out who will speak first untill they end their mind games. It can never ending with both dying simultaneously, otherwise they weren't psychic. Whatever we postulate about who will talk first musn't defeat the fact that they are psychics unless they have a higher goal than just being psychics.

Conclusion, in an evil encounter we will never know. Like I said, too few variables to postulate a meaningful theory or analyze the situashon.

 

[Haven]

This is way too vague.
What do you mean by "conversation"? The psychic vision? The discussion which takes place in the psychic vision? The discussion they have once they have met in person?
And what do you mean by "know"?

 

[Duxwing]

An assumption in this post is that both psychics remember their visions. Consider the possibility that they forget them; assume that and problem solved-- determinism takes care of the rest. Even if they don't forget, consider the Illiad, in which characters are shown their fates-- just as they psychics are shown their conversations-- and must deal with them. Nevertheless, one could also simply assume determinism and wave one's hand at the missing variables, saying "Whatever happens, happens".

You've also assumed that the psychics would care that they know it will happen. Consider a couple getting married or actors rehearsing a play: all parties involved know the outcome to the letter, and yet they continue. Therefore, while the psychics may know what will happen, having it happen in reality may be sufficiently satisfying as to overwhelm their boredom during this predetermined conversation.

Therefore, assuming determinism, identical visions, and a non-empty conversation, the psychic who speaks first in the vision must speak first. However, if the psychics have absolutely free will, then they cannot be psychics, thus forming a paradox with regard to predicting the future. The only way to accomplish the feat is through compatibilism: a blend of free will and determinism that largely resembles a video game. Its rules and plot events are determined, but the players' actions apart from these are not (i.e., a player may be required to shoot an arrow, but the target is up to the player).

I hope that helped.
-Duxwing

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

If they both already foresaw the conversation, then they should have also foreseen who would be the first to speak, right?

And I suppose if we assume this is a legit prophecy, and legit psychics, then neither of them could avoid it from happening even if they wanted to, and would know this - so they would both comply to carry it out even though they know the outcome already.

At this point, my overriding compulsion is to shoot one of the psychics so that the conversation has no way to possibly ever occur... just to see if I can.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

Convo happens in real life as foreseen
But, it is not realized until afterwards, like déjà vu, that the premonition came true

If the meeting had a specific goal or intention, they would probably skip any form of debate and just skip to the result that was foreseen; however, that in itself changes history, that's why deja vu is the best explanation because if they change the course of events that were foreseen then they didn't really see the future

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Two psychics forsee meetng each other, and know the exact conversation that is to take place. Who starts the conversation first?

Why, if they both know what they will say, should they re-enact it? So I say neither. They already had the conversation psychically. Why should either bother showing up?

They foresaw the conversation. That does not mean they already had it. If they don't have it, then it was not foreseen, merely mutually imagined.

 

[snafupants]

I though I would mix this one up. Think you can answer. I have an idea, but let us open this up for debate?

If they both knew the exact conversation, as well as its nuances and timings beforehand, then the person slated to go first would go first. Person B couldn't deliver her response until person A had delivered some point - ergo, person A must go first if the conversation is to be identical to the exact prognostication. This, of course, presumes both psychics want to emulate the foreshadowed conversation. There are other assumptions at play, like whether they are talking to each other.

 

[Reluctantly]

By knowing the future, one has the ability to make it happen or stop it from happening.

Are they both aiming to make it happen?
Are they both aiming to stop it from happening? Is one?

Unless it's a time loop, in which case, ideas of determinism would be enforced and demand that it will happen regardless of any intent to make it happen or to stop it by the psychics actions.

But here's the problem. Let's say everything is known about the world by one psychic, so that that psychic can choose their actions to lead to exactly the outcome they want or foresee.
The problem is, such knowledge would require that they know the affects of what they have not learned or experienced yet; they must be able to cogitate the whole of time, while unable to learn and be affected from it in the process, a significant part of cognition, awareness, and intelligence.

So who starts the conversation first? Well, what is the point that you are trying to elucidate?, since the answers seem dependent on their aims.

 

[Sorlaize]

psychics aren't real.

 

[Marshall]

This involves an infinite loop of logic, it's unsolvable in this context without more information. Obviously they foresee who will start the conversation, so it will only go on from there. Other than that vague answer there is no answer, similar to the "going back in time to kill your own grandfather" paradox.