>>79704269 >>79704323 the one who can read the other's mind has access to all the knowledge that the one who can see the future has, including all his knowledge of the future. the man who can see the future cannot read the mind-reader's mind. there is an obvious unbalance of information in this battle.
ultimately what would happen is that in an instant every pathway by which the seer could win would be discovered and then disregarded as the mind-reader adapted to the seer's plans. eventually the only future that the seer could predict is one where he loses.
>>79704450 >the man who can see the future cannot read the mind-reader's mind. there is an obvious unbalance of information in this battle If the mind reader can read the future teller's mind to the extent that he also knows the future, the future teller would be able to predict the mind readers actions to the same or relatively same degree The point of OP's premise is that they both effectively know the same amount of information about each other's next move
The man with future sight would win. All he would need to do is create a scenario which misleads the mind reader into assuming a cause and effect relationship based on knowing an outcome—that is, having him incorrectly guess what course of action would alter a future in which he loses into one where he survives or wins.
>>79704269 Future teller psychic will only have access to info at the point in time that he reads the mind while future teller will always be able to know the right moves to win or in the case to not lose Future vision trumps mind reading everytime,
>>79705108 >the one that can see the future can only see him losing You can't lose a game that you don't play If the future teller can't come up with a way he could possibly win, then why would he play?
>>79704269 Future plans can be read by the mind reader. Mind reader can also copy the plans of the future seer unrelated to the future seer. The future seer cannot figure out information the mind refer knows. Future seer can still win by planting false plans into his own memory and relying on strategically denying himself information - using other people to store information, for example - but he'd need to be more intelligent than the mind reader to consistently pull it off without his ruse being discovered.
Mind reader might not win every time, but he has a significant advantage. Assuming his power is absolute, anyways, if it's not then the future reader can very easily alter his own thoughts to seems misleading information and know whether or not beforehand whether he'd believe it.
Mostly a matter of how well the future seer can control his own thoughts.
>>79705189 >It was his destiny So if the future couldn't be changed, then he wouldn't really be playing the game I mean, if you know how everything is going to happen, it'd be like playing a little kid in chess and letting him win You'd essentially be performing a checklist instead of just playing a game And if the mind reader read that, he would probably also understand that really everything he's doing has been predetermined and that he's just following the directions that he got from the other person
Either way, this is just under the assumptions that 1. The future seer actually sees that he will lose 2. The future cannot be changed and that time isn't a series of branches based upon actions but a single path that follows one direction Both of these things haven't been stated to be true
>>79705281 The future seer will see the future as how it would happen, to be able to change to change the fate would mean he doesn't really sees the future as the vision he saw never really happened. since we have no context of why these two characters are against each other, is only fair to assume that the vision the future seer has, is the one that will happen, and taking it into account the mind reader has the upper hand.
>>79705504 >The future seer will see the future as how it would happen Only under the assumption that he doesn't see the future as it might happen should he decide to bring about certain decisions
>to be able to change to change the fate would mean he doesn't really sees the future Only under the assumption that the future functions as a fixed point that he cannot influence and not as a river or tree that branches out into multiple possible futures, each future relying on specific actions
After all, like all things in the universe, observation of something changes it's outcome because of the principle of superposition
>since we have no context of why these two characters are against each other, is only fair to assume that the vision the future seer has, is the one that will happen That doesn't make any sense The reason the two foes would be opposed would have nothing to do with the extent of their abilities nor would it have anything to do with the nature of their universe
>>79704269 Both could be done in by an event which they lack the physical capabilities to prevent. The precognitive man could be on a plane with a big guy who cannot feel even the most extreme pain. He looks into the future and sees that the big guy is going to crash the plane with no survivors. What is he to do? The same situation applies to the telepath. The telepath could believe that he is in charge, only to read the mercenary's mind and discover that getting caught was in fact part of his plan.
>Telepath dude: I'm gonna rape your slutty prescient brain 14/7 from a remote location and you'll like it.
Prescient dude loses unless he has viable counters against psionics. And if he does then OP is being a fag, he should have clearly stated that prescient dude is also a mental rape-proof hardass with genius-level IQ besides seeing future shit.
Using glimpses of the future to delay or retreat from your opponent doesn't count. Running away isn't winning.
I think you just get an instance where they both go completely insane. While the future guy can see what the mind reader is going to do, the mind reader knows what the future guy is thinking and planning, so the mind reader plans around that, which means what the future guy saw is now different than what it was before, which also means what he is thinking about doing has changed as well, and so on and so on...
>>79705922 Then the guy who can see the future wins Because it's not a game of planning, it's a game of reaction Only the person who can see the future actually knows what his opponent is going to throw out and the person who reads minds will only be able to read what he will throw out in the future In order for the mind reader to know what the person in the future is going to play, he'd have to read his own hands and then find out if the future seer is going to either match his hand or trump it If that's the case, he might as well just not read his opponent's mind at all
>>79705926 Some things just can't stopped. Being able to see the future doesn't necessarily make you fast enough, strong enough, or smart enough to stop it. It doesn't tell why the future is going to be that way or what you can do to stop it. Same goes for mind reading. If a mind reader is unarmed and held up by an armed gunmen who is thinking something like "I'm going to shoot him on the count of three" then he's well and truly fucked.
>>79705612 >as a river or tree that branches out into multiple possible futures, , each future relying on specific actions This would mean that he can see, every branch the future may take at every action taken, but as you said > observation of something changes it's outcome because of the principle of superposition Like the behavior of Quarks every possibility is available as long as its not observed, but once it is observed, the other possibilities will disappear. So the future seer, by observing the future he eliminates all the other possibilities it may have.
>>79706080 >eliminates all the other possibilities it may have That's actually kind of the opposite of what I said, You're basically saying seeing the future cements your fate by eliminating all the other possibilities and ignoring the notion that you still have to take an action to eliminate certain possibilities Seeing the future changes the future that you saw, so if you want the future that you saw to come true, you have to do everything in the same manner that you saw in the vision So if he saw himself lose, he would have to lose on purpose if he wanted his vision to come true The only futures that would be eliminated would be the ones that he didn't follow, so if he chose to not follow the one where he lost, that future is the one that would be eliminated You're basically saying seeing the future cements your fate by eliminating all the other possibilities
>>79706076 Chess isn't about being faster or stronger it's about smarter and know the ABSOLUTE future will trump reading a mind every time. That's assuming time is absolute, the question is baseless without knowing the "Time" in the hypothetical. Is it absolute? Is there possibilities? If it it is then the future guy if not than the mind reader
>>79705023 He's implying something very good actually. The seer may be able to see future events, but there's no indication that it is an objective perspective (most iterations are not). Ultimately he is constrained by the limited perception of the human mind/body and must infer and interpret information and is ultimately fallible. The mind reader can see the seer's subjective truth, see reality from the seer's perspective as well as his own which allows him to play things in his favor.
>>79706182 >That's actually kind of the opposite of what I said Yeah, because there is a contradiction >You're basically saying seeing the future cements your fate by eliminating all the other possibilities Exactly. much like Schrödinger's cat, the cat may or may not be alive, but once you open the box, the other possibility disappears, and its unchangeable. The future is uncertain, but he, by observing it, has cemented it to the fate that he saw.
>>79706271 >but there's no indication that it is an objective perspective There's also no indication that the mind reader will be able to read the subjective truth either, it could be basic level "I can hear your thoughts" and not "I'm digging through your mind" And even then, there's no reason to believe that 1. The mind reader will be able to analyze and interpret the information he gleans from his opponent's mind and come up with a plan that isn't fallible itself or that the reader is also limited by human perception 2. That the future that is seen is unreliable. Just because something is capable of being wrong, doesn't mean it will be wrong 3.That an objective perspective matters in terms of defending yourself from something that is ultimately going to be perceived and transmitted through subjective truths
After all, these two are of the same intelligence, there's no reason to believe that one has an inherent advantage based on insecurity
>>79706338 But unlike Schrodinger's cat, the future is not a single event that, but a series of events that take do not exist in a quasi-state of existence You're thinking that seeing the future is opening the box, but it's not Opening the box is the action that the future seer might take, Seeing the future is knowing whether or not the cat will be alive or dead if you decide open it
>>79704269 The guy who can see the future will know it before the guy who can read minds get the information so he can punch him in the face while he is concentrating trying to read the other guy mind.
>>79706364 Being able to glean someones ACTUAL thoughts on anything i.e. their perspective... is kind of better for information gathering.
Seeing the future is commonly portrayed as seeing a "memory" of the future. Played this way we are able to interpret the information like normal. Reading someone's mind, gaining a TRUE insight into somebody doesn't really have a proper corollary. The seer would have to interpret action/reaction normally while the telepath would know for a fact.
The seer would be reacting while the telepath would be leading. Everyone knows who wins that fight.
>>79706475 >The lies the problem if the seer can see that the reader would know and adjust. Depends on if it's too late to adjust or not Depends on how the seer plans or which future the seers takes For example, Let's say the seer sees himself ordering a bunch of pizzas in the future Both the seer and the reader would know this But if the seer doesn't see any further, he wouldn't know the intent behind his actions So then in the future, the seer takes a look at the future again and sees a bunch of pizzas showing up at at the readers address Would the reader be able to stop the pizzas from showing up? Would the seer be able to place himself in a situations in which the reader couldn't stop the pizzas from showing up?
>>79706429 >You're thinking that seeing the future is opening the box, but it's not It is, its seeing the future, he knows what will happen, he has opened the box, not opening the box would be not knowing about the future at all. > action that the future seer might take He already knows the action he will make
>>79706557 >ACTUAL thoughts But that would be subconscious and not conscious After all, the seer could just think about My Little Pony all day long and depending on the power of the mind reader, that might be all he gets But being able to dig through someone's mind/thoughts, that's the "ACTUAL" thoughts/perspective I was talking about
>Seeing the future is commonly portrayed as seeing a "memory" of the future >Reading someone's mind, gaining a TRUE insight into somebody doesn't really have a proper corollary The proper corollary would just be seeing actual memories and thought processes There's a difference between reading a mind and understanding a mind, and telepathy doesn't necessarily come with that power
>The seer would be reacting while the telepath would be leading The telepath is reacting to whatever the seer sees, like, the telepath absolutely cannot function (by which I mean, cannot use their power, cannot have an advantage) if there is no mind to read If both the telepath and the seer are in separate rooms with two different murderous robot devices trying to attack them, the reader wouldn't be able to make it out alive as easily as the seer would
>>79706381 Don't act like they're not important. If one of them is a dyel shrimp and the other is a decathlon champ, neither foresight nor telepathy will save the lanklet from a hard beatdown. Even if your enemy isn't necessarily stronger or faster than you, future sight or telepathy may not save you from his goons. Again, future sight gives no context for the visions you receive, so attempting to interfere with the chain of cause and effect that led to what you saw could prove fruitless. If you receive a vision that you just instantly drop dead, what the Hell do you? What causes you to drop dead? It could be Dio Brando or it could be a stroke. Similarly, if you use telepathy to read Dio Brando's mind and hear him think "I'm going to freeze time and rip his head off", well what are you to do? Even without Dio Brando, if it's just the precog and the telepath, there are so many other things that could go wrong just between the two of them. One could have an edge over the other that's wholly unrelated to their powers.
>>79706582 Schrodinger's cat only lives or dies once the box is opened, and the seer can see whether or not the cat will live or die But if the box isn't opened, and the future hasn't happened yet, the cat still exists in a state of uncertainty Who is to say that someone doesn't open the box and the seer doesn't stick around to find out? Who is to say that opening the box released the poison that killed the cat because the radioactive detector was malfunctioning?
>>79706622 >He already knows the action he will make If he decides to take the action He has only opened the box in one possible future, in another possible future it stays closed because he decides to not open the box This is why I keep saying that the future depends on which action he takes and not which future he sees The seer doesn't he himself doing a specific action, the seer sees the future should he decide to take an action
>>79704882 >implying you can beat a troll In the trolls eyes, any responses, or even none, cause them to believe they are le masta trolololo; and in your eyes simply not being immature enough to troll makes you think you are the victor. Any outside opinion is judged by agreement, so it's a biased view of victory. Even in numbers, you could tell yourself that the majority was foolish. There is no victory in a game of trolls, only the potential to lose.
>>79706750 >Who is to say that someone doesn't open the box and the seer doesn't stick around to find out? >Who is to say that opening the box released the poison that killed the cat because the radioactive detector was malfunctioning? *someone else does open the box to clarify, the seer can see the future, but not the reasons as to why everything happens the way it does He might be able to predict a car crash, but he might not be able to see the reason that the cars crashed It's just a different kind of uncertainty
>>79706709 Truthfully I bet they wouldn't even fight it'd end up in a sort of mutual destruction. A shrimp to a champ? They wouldn't even battle. Future vision is also a catch all. Main point is time certain? If it's not than telepathy would win/escape every time.
>>79706808 You're getting confused over what is being disputed The analogy isn't chess to "game of trolls", it's getting mad about chess to getting mad at trolls on the internet if anything, chess' analog would just be browsing the internet the minute the "troll" stopped playing chess, "I", or whoever kept their calm and toppled the king, one you're just making the mistake of caring about what the troll does outside of the conflict, the only way a troll can win is if you take them seriously the only way to win against a troll is to not care about what the troll does
>makes you think you are the victor it was never about whether or not you think you won if you're playing chess, there's a clear winner and a clear loser to the game of chess
>>79706823 >He cant just see millions of futures Says who? That has been the explaination of how future vision works in multiple works of fiction Your actions dictate which path reality takes > He has not opened the box, but he has xray and know what is inside That defeats the purpose of the experiment and isn't applicable
>>79706851 > If knowing the cat is dead or alive than it's certain only in a hypothetical future where he chooses to open the box and at the specific time he chooses to open the box
>>79704450 But what if, like...they're not in the same room so the future seeing guy can look at their future confrontation and plan in advance and the mind reader guy isn't within range to read his mind? Usually mind reading requires som kind of proximity while future-seeing doesn't.
>>79706933 >Usually mind reading requires som kind of proximity while future-seeing doesn't That just falls under the "ill-defined powers" argument We actually don't know how and to what extent do their powers function This is all just hypothetical based on various assumptions
But if mind reading is proximity based, then future vision would have the advantage
>>79706923 >Says who? The OP >One can see the future Clearly states that there is a single one >That defeats the purpose of the experiment and isn't applicable The whole seeing into the future defeats logic, the example is clear, he know whats inside before someone or he opens it.
>>79706879 I'm responding more to that particular post, saying it's a two-party ststem where either side sets the rules of victory for themselves. Both players can "win" when it comes to trolling. As for the actual thread's theme, a big factor people are missing is whether or not the two mental combatants are aware of the other's power. If not, the mind reader could see that the seer has future vision, and likely has an advantage. As long as he doesn't announce it himself, his mind reading is kept secret from the seer. This sets up one of two outcomes, based on time's fluidity. If time is set- as many have said, it then becomes less of a game than roles for puppets to play. The winner will win, and neither power truly holds an advantage. If time is fluid, the seer would have to adjust with every move. The seer knoes the reader will do action A, then sets up action B to counter. The reader knew of action B, and proceeds to act out C. It goes on until an unwinnable move is played, which either party should know, and perhaps see coming. This may leave the victory up to whomever moved first, and time being fluid the seer couldn't truly know if going second or first would mean victory, and would act on whichever choice he sees. I'd say that either the mind reader wins, or that while he has an upper hand, it's ultimately a game of odds and fate.
>>79706952 >Clearly states that there is a single one No, that isn't what "the future" implies especially not because you (or perhaps another anon) has used "this is how it has worked in fiction before" in other arguments see >>79706557 >>79706271 >but there's no indication that it is an objective perspective (most iterations are not) >Seeing the future is commonly portrayed as seeing a "memory" of the futuref both assumptions based on other pieces of fiction
>The whole seeing into the future defeats logic You're essentially saying that it applies because we aren't talking about things that are real
>he know whats inside before someone or he opens it only if he lets someone open it only if someone opens it and that all depends on when he opens it or what happens to the box inbetween his vision and the instant the box is opened and/or the cat inside is observed
>>79706974 >Both players can "win" when it comes to trolling But only one person is trolling The other person is playing chess, which has rules that aren't set up personally They are the rules of chess, and chess has winners, losers, and stalematers But my argument was that the "troll" stopped playing chess and forfeit
If the guy can see the future than the mind reader can also see the future and change what's going to happen, but than the guy who can see the future will change what he does, than the guy who can read minds will change what he does...it's an infinite loop.
>>79707078 >>79707060 Also, what if the seer just wants to chase the mind reader down? The future seer would just effectively know where ever the mind reader goes, you can't really stop that Sure the mind reader could buy a gun, but then the future reader would just buy a bullet proof vest That doesn't stop the future seer from chasing the mind reader down
>>79707006 >>79707016 Who knows if he can establish such things. Any plan he comes up with can be read on sight. That's the true issue, that the powers end up useless. If the mind reader uses his, the seer will see it and act accordingly. If the seer plans anything based on anything, the mind reader can tell his plans. It ends up being a refular game kf wits, and they are meant to be equal minded. This question might as well be "a genius plays chess with his clone, who wins?" It's either a game of chance/luck, or a game where whoever wins will win as it comes.
>>79707009 >No, that isn't what "the future" implies then, it ends in a matter of opinion on what is the future and how interpret it >You're essentially saying that it applies It applies, as a different perspective of how the seer see things. >only if he lets someone open it only if someone opens it it doesn't matter, he know whats inside. like peeking a christmas present, you know what your gonna get, the content will not change even if you decide to not open it.
>>79707107 >By that logic the future seer would break down in tears before the mind seer had a chance to say anything How? I assumed that it was going to be a sort of smear campaign against the future seer, not just "You gonna put the whole world in a bottle" If the future seer is actually affected by just the mention of the lies, wouldn't that mean in the future he wouldn't be as affected by those lies?
If the mind reader is smart enough to come up with something that soul shattering, wouldn't the future seer be just as equipped to deal with it?
>>79707119 It depends. Maybe there are strategies that work by moving second. It's so full of possibilities that it's basically just a game of chess itself (or whatever they're doing) The powers throw us off, making us focus on targets and see meaning in such a simple question. "Two people play chess, who wins?" The only thing that matters about the powers is that it leaves the possibility open of a set timeline; and that only leaves us with the answer of "whoever will win shall win" The winner will win because even if he hasn't won yet, the moment he does will mean he was always going to win.
It depends on whether mind reader can come up with a way to defeat future seer in a way that the future seer can't tell how he lost. The mind reader guy knows everything future seer knows so he knows the future as well. Future seer guy can see what mind reader guy will do but he can't see what mind reader is thinking or planning. The solution is for the mind reader to come up with a plan that allows him to beat future seer without future seer ever knowing how he was beaten. Even if future seer sees himaelf losing, if he never knows HOW he lost he won't know how to avoid it. So if mind reader can plan a way for the future seer to lose without ever knowing what happened to him he wins and if not it's a stalemate.
>>79707243 Not really, it just depends what you feel more strongly about and what you focus on I mean, it's possible to "relieve pain" by introducing different pain in a different source Like, how if you stub your toe and then get slapped really hard you might just forget about how you stubbed your toe or you might just realize that your toe still hurts more than getting slapped really hard
Also, murdering your own pet at a young age build a sensitivity to emotions, so it would make the pain almost non-existent because you had a weird childhood
>>79707262 Also, if the seer figures out that the telepath can read his mind, all he has to do is look far enough into the future to see whether or not he wins, and decide if he wants to do it without relying on his abilities or maximize the damage done to the other guy in the case of his defeat (in this case, I suppose would be humiliating him since they're just outwitting each other)
>>79707257 Right, but specifically the conversation was about getting suckerpunched If someone is stalling for time, they'd probably be even more aware of the moment you're allowed to fight
>>79707216 That's true for both parties though The easiest way to win would be to win in a way that isn't obvious to the other party The future seer could see his own future plans and set everything up according to that, but have no actual clue of how it works Then once he gets to a certain point he sees the full scope of the plans and enacts it Basically both parties have to play a move that cannot be defended against
>>79707298 But the mind reader guy knows what the future guy is thinking. If future guy knows how his own plan works so does mind reader guy. Future guy is at a disadvantage because if mind reader can come up with a plan that future guy will never know the details of future guy can't defend against it.
Future guy cannot come up with a plan that mind guy will never know the details of unless he also doesn't know his own plan, which makes no sense.
>>79707340 The future guy could come up with a plan after the game is over and relay it back to his past self in parts Or in the scenario where his plan is to just view pieces of the future and make sure everything happens up until that point
Really it all depends on how the future seer uses his powers
>>79707378 Right, but they will each equally know nothing about the general plan
If one of the parts of the plan is "buy a hammer and place it under your pillow", that's all each of them know The only person who knows how the game is going to end is the future future seer, but present mind reader cannot the future future seer's mind
>>79707381 >Future seer looks into the future and sees the mind reader saying "I WIN" >the mind reader now knows this and gets cocky and says "I WIN" after something happens >the future seer actually wins by actually doing something
>>79707402 So how does the future seer know a hammer under his pillow will let him win unless he looks into the future and sees himself winning?
Also--mind reader might not know the importance of the hammer but if he knows that the future seer was told by his future self to get a hammer he'll know that the hammer has some significance and still have cause to sabotage it. He might not know how the pieces fit together but he'll still know what the pieces are.
>>79707450 >So how does the future seer know a hammer under his pillow will let him win unless he looks into the future and sees himself winning? My actual idea is like, the future seer looks into the future at a specific time that he decides on that happens after the game is over He sees himself writing down instructions on a piece of paper He then follows those instructions until it's time for the next instruction
Basically his future self is making the plan based on what happen in the game in the past and telling his past self what to do to win
>>79707450 >He might not know how the pieces fit together but he'll still know what the pieces are You can't really sabotage something without knowing what to sabotage, maybe the mindreader doing something with the hammer is a part of the plan Neither of them know that, only the future future seer does
>>79707495 Also, maybe the future future seer sends back false information Like "The mind reader's downfall is from you using this hammer for X" is sent back so the mind reader steals the hammer, which ultimately leads to their downfall
Thread replies: 138 Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 514113
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.