Massive silver lining then. Having found a way to determine objective truth sounds pretty powerful and useful, even if it’s not what you originally wished for.
Can you imagine? A modern day oracle. Scientists would be lining up to ask questions about how the world worked and everything you said would be true.
It would be great for just confirming things that science suspected were true. Like, all the rare particles they’re trying to find with the Large Hadron Collider. They could just ask the oracle and learn all the particles they were missing, along with all the important data about them.
Best of all, if you couldn’t lie, and couldn’t be wrong (even if you didn’t know the answer) it could be used to “discover” things without ever having to go down blind alleys, or waste time with research that won’t bear fruit. For example, you could ask “is it possible for something like a spaceship to move faster than the speed of light?” If the answer is no, then you can write off working on that forever. If it’s yes, you could progressively ask questions to learn the theory you’d need to know to build a FTL ship. It could also finally put to bed whether time travel is possible, and how the paradoxes involved are resolved.
If FTL travel is possible, you could just ask the oracle where all the various aliens are, making it really easy to contact them (plus the oracle can tell you if it’s unsafe to contact them).
Also, since it was obviously possible to transform someone into an oracle, it should be possible to do that again. You can just ask the oracle the right questions needed to create a second, third, tenth, 1000th oracle. That way the one oracle isn’t always so busy, and if the first oracle dies, there are still many more.
You can still speak, just be very careful when making statements of fact. Learn to automatically tag “hypothetically speaking” and “I think” onto everything.
Predicting lottery numbers, proving mathematic formula, coming up with options with for ftl and cold fusion if there are any
Most of these assume that the power will correct what you are thinking/going to say rather than preventing you from thinking /saying it. It’s still busted, but in its weakest form you want to be using it to make choices/giving advice.
You’ll have to come up with proofs for all problems though, but I guess that would be possibly by trying to say “<some math field> is required for the proof” over and over while getting more specific to narrow it down.
That depends on whether you interpret “when” + past tense in English to also assert the reality of the temporal clause. The interpretation which allows the vacuous truth is, in my opinion, not even technically correct (by correct I mean aligns with actual spoken usage). It would amount to formalizing the sentence as
For all meetings between us, if said meeting is at a past time and it’s the first meeting (i.e. before all other meetings), you promised at that time to give me all your money.
Which is indeed vacuously true, if there have been no past meetings, or even if the meetings aren’t well-ordered in time :). On the surface this is a perfectly good interpretation, but it doesn’t really align with real usage (though I would love to see an example of “when” + past tense being used this way, e.g. in a legal document).
On the other hand, most people would interpret “when” + past to assert that the event actually happened, which in this context means
I have met you before, a “first meeting” can be identified, and at that first meeting, you promised to give me all your money.
Or even more formally
There exist meetings between us at a past time, there exists such a unique meeting which is first, and, for all meetings, if said meeting is indeed the first, you promised me at that time to give me all your money.
And this can be reduced to
There exists a unique past meeting between us such that [it’s first, and you promised to give me all your money at that time].
I think this interpretation is most closely aligned with how “when” is actually used in practice. “If” feels different, though. It can act as simple logical implication, logical equivalence, or anything in between, so it may be more interesting to study. Also note that all of this doesn’t apply to “when” + simple present, which acts very similarly to “if”.
You find you can no longer lie.
So, if I lie down, will I fly? Antigravity style?
But can you still be incorrect?
No, because you are always right.
Massive silver lining then. Having found a way to determine objective truth sounds pretty powerful and useful, even if it’s not what you originally wished for.
Learning good search algorithms will be your friend.
Can you imagine? A modern day oracle. Scientists would be lining up to ask questions about how the world worked and everything you said would be true.
It would be great for just confirming things that science suspected were true. Like, all the rare particles they’re trying to find with the Large Hadron Collider. They could just ask the oracle and learn all the particles they were missing, along with all the important data about them.
Best of all, if you couldn’t lie, and couldn’t be wrong (even if you didn’t know the answer) it could be used to “discover” things without ever having to go down blind alleys, or waste time with research that won’t bear fruit. For example, you could ask “is it possible for something like a spaceship to move faster than the speed of light?” If the answer is no, then you can write off working on that forever. If it’s yes, you could progressively ask questions to learn the theory you’d need to know to build a FTL ship. It could also finally put to bed whether time travel is possible, and how the paradoxes involved are resolved.
If FTL travel is possible, you could just ask the oracle where all the various aliens are, making it really easy to contact them (plus the oracle can tell you if it’s unsafe to contact them).
Also, since it was obviously possible to transform someone into an oracle, it should be possible to do that again. You can just ask the oracle the right questions needed to create a second, third, tenth, 1000th oracle. That way the one oracle isn’t always so busy, and if the first oracle dies, there are still many more.
My mouth letting me say “I’m always right but I’m still a massive idiot” is going to hit me like a brick
Don’t lose hope, while being an idiot you may claim out loud that you’re a genius
Bro ends up like Morty with the death-prediction crystal in his head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjepJlvkdKs
If you are lucky and it works that way. Maybe you simply cannot speak at all if you are not absolutely sure that a statement is correct.
You can still speak, just be very careful when making statements of fact. Learn to automatically tag “hypothetically speaking” and “I think” onto everything.
Predicting lottery numbers, proving mathematic formula, coming up with options with for ftl and cold fusion if there are any
Always being right without knowledge on your end could lead humanity forward a lot if you can prove your standing
Most of these assume that the power will correct what you are thinking/going to say rather than preventing you from thinking /saying it. It’s still busted, but in its weakest form you want to be using it to make choices/giving advice.
Or whatever they say is right instead. Atomics are fake? No nuclear power. Oops there goes the sun because fissions gone.
Seems out of the scope of power for a genie, but I don’t know how to scale mythical creatures
Let’s just hope a flatearther doesn’t get it.
You might only be speaking in math, though.
Decide whether P = NP and get yourself an easy $1M. And another $5M for the other millenium prize problems.
You’ll have to come up with proofs for all problems though, but I guess that would be possibly by trying to say “<some math field> is required for the proof” over and over while getting more specific to narrow it down.
Exactly!
Reason #2801 why vacuous truths are awesome.
“When I first met you, you promised to give me all your money” is a true statement because I have never actually met you.
Just be careful not to test this in court.
That depends on whether you interpret “when” + past tense in English to also assert the reality of the temporal clause. The interpretation which allows the vacuous truth is, in my opinion, not even technically correct (by correct I mean aligns with actual spoken usage). It would amount to formalizing the sentence as
Which is indeed vacuously true, if there have been no past meetings, or even if the meetings aren’t well-ordered in time :). On the surface this is a perfectly good interpretation, but it doesn’t really align with real usage (though I would love to see an example of “when” + past tense being used this way, e.g. in a legal document).
On the other hand, most people would interpret “when” + past to assert that the event actually happened, which in this context means
Or even more formally
And this can be reduced to
I think this interpretation is most closely aligned with how “when” is actually used in practice. “If” feels different, though. It can act as simple logical implication, logical equivalence, or anything in between, so it may be more interesting to study. Also note that all of this doesn’t apply to “when” + simple present, which acts very similarly to “if”.
Damn it, I was trying to go for the “When” + simple present to check whether my statement worked.
I thought:
“When 1 equals 2, blablabla” is always true, therefore [my statement above] works as well.
But I should’ve thought “When 1 equaled 2, …” which doesn’t sound true anymore.
That is to say: Fuck grammatical tenses!
I love you