by Dan Frey
BOYCE: I will acknowledge, there have been, only recently, certain…Discrepancies, we call them. And, so far as we can tell, they originated during the beta period.
SEN. DANA BOUCHER (D-NV): Meaning you think the beta tests may have caused them?
BOYCE: We think the theft may have caused them. Which is why, since then, and moving forward…we have elected to drastically step up our security measures. I can assure you, the situation is under control.
SEN. GREG WALDEN (D-OR): The senator’s time is complete, moving on to—
SEN. DANA BOUCHER (D-NV): Mr. Boyce, in what way is the situation even remotely under control, when—
SEN. GREG WALDEN (D-OR): Senator Boucher, if you will yield the floor, we will—
SEN. DANA BOUCHER (D-NV): Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted one final remark? Thank you. Mr. Boyce, it is clear that you have nothing under control. You have a missing co-founder, a machine that doesn’t work, and a glimpse into a horribly dark future that you are refusing to share, even though it theoretically impacts us all. If you want this legislative body to view you and your technology as anything other than a dangerous threat, you need to open up your books, your company, everything, and let us see what is behind the curtain.
SEN. GREG WALDEN (D-OR): The senator’s time is finished. Mr. Boyce, any final reply?
BOYCE: …I have no comment at this time.
CHAPTER 17
EMAIL–OCTOBER 2, 2021
From: Adhvan Chaudry
To: Ben Boyce
B—
I have been deep-diving on the Prototype this morning…
and have found MANY more Discrepancies.
New developments in the future that were not observed even last week.
Perhaps the most frightening being these articles…
U.S. Launches Ground, Air Campaign in Ukraine
U.S. Launches Pre-Emptive Strike Against Russian Forces in Ukraine
Intel from “The Future” Device Drove Pre-Emptive Ukraine Strike
Russian Standoff in Ukraine Could Escalate
U.S. Cites “Future Human Rights Abuses” as Justification for Pre-Emptive Strike
China Accuses U.S. of Escalating Conflict, Cites “The Future” Intel
War on the Peninsula Looms
I’m attaching the linked articles.
Please take the time to read them all.
This is NEW. This is not something we’ve seen before.
We need to figure out how to handle this…
—A
REPLY
Hey man, you need to cool it on this. Step away from the Prototype and get some air. We always knew that our tech would get tangled up with international politics. We made a conscious decision not to know too much. And we made a firm POLICY not to download (and certainly not to SHARE) any data about future global events, which, if it leaked, could be hugely problematic.
Kevin and I huddled up about everything that’s going on and decided we need to implement some new security protocols. A memo is going out tomorrow about the particulars, but thought I’d loop you in early.
Basically we’re locking down use of the device so it’s only gonna be usable as it relates directly to pressing matters relevant to the future of the company, therefore will only be accessible to the two of us (me and Kevin). I figure you won’t mind too much, you haven’t even been using it lately.
REPLY
B—
First off—who the fuck is Kevin?
And how is it even conceivable that he is spearheading a policy that locks me out from accessing my own invention?
Why would you maintain usage rights while I’m locked out?
—A
REPLY
Listen dude, this is a drastic-times, drastic-temporary-measures type of situation. Don’t worry about it too much. And Kevin Martindale, for the record, is a former member of a three-letter agency, with a pristine record of national service, and now he’s a highly recommended private security expert. If you were involved in day-to-day operations in the least, you would know this.
In case you’re not savvy to what this means, our tech got straight-up STOLEN! Also honestly it bums me out you’re calling it your invention when I think it’s undeniable this tech wouldn’t exist without both of our contribution.
Now, where are we on the 2.0? Time to get back to it. THAT is the solution to the problem you’re talking about. The real problem. The problem of our POWERLESSNESS. And if there’s anyone who can crack it, it’s YOU.
EXCERPT FROM CONGRESSIONAL HEARING—DECEMBER 1, 2021
SEN. DIANA JACKSON (D-MI): Mr. Boyce, what was “the 2.0”?
BOYCE: The what?
SEN. DIANA JACKSON (D-MI): There are rumors, substantiated by several former employees, who allege that your company has invested significant resources in research for a new technological project referred to internally only as “the 2.0.”
BOYCE: Yes, well, that was for a project, in its infancy, that we are not interested in discussing publicly at this time, for trade-secret reasons.
SEN. DIANA JACKSON (D-MI): If you would like this legislative body to look favorably on your endeavor, as concerns our forthcoming legislation, you might want to rethink your position on that.
BOYCE: Right. Well…our first device is the 1.0, which lets users look forward in time by one year. We imagine that we will reach market saturation for that product eventually…and as such, we want to be able to follow up with a new product. The 2.0. Which, naturally, will let users see forward in the future by a two-year time horizon.
SEN. DIANA JACKSON (D-MI): I thought you previously stated that you were not able to build a machine with that functionality.
BOYCE: Yes, well…not yet. We’re still in development. But we’re confident, in time, that we’ll—
SEN. DIANA JACKSON (D-MI): Some have speculated that the one-year limit may not be technological, but…historical. That there will be cataclysmic global events which disrupt the world on such a scale that…well, maybe we can’t see the world two years from now because there won’t be a world to see.
BOYCE: No, no, we have absolutely no evidence to support that. And, as soon as we have a working model with two-year functionality, we will be able to put those overblown rumors to rest. It’s just like, the way computers and phones get faster every year…this is our equivalent, letting you look two years ahead, instead of one. And, you can imagine, down the line…we might have the 3.0. And the 4.0. Et cetera. You can imagine what those will do.
SEN. DIANA JACKSON (D-MI): So your plan is to get people hooked on the future, and then just spoon out a little more at a time, so people are always paying top dollar to get a little further out ahead of the next guy.
BOYCE: That’s a cynical way to put it, but yes. We intend to deliver better and better information services with each new iteration.
SEN. DIANA JACKSON (D-MI): So the 2.0 has nothing to do with the possibility of actually sending a person back in time?
BOYCE: I wish. But Adhi made it abundantly clear to me, that was all just sci-fi nonsense.
SEN. DIANA JACKSON (D-MI): So you never even entertained the possibility of attempting to build such a device?
BOYCE: Never.
INTERNAL MEMO FROM THE FUTURE SERVERS
NEW PRODUCT RESEARCH REPORT
“The Future 2.0”
ADHVAN CHAUDRY
Theoretical Objective: Physical transtemporal regression—that is, time travel, in the manner of an individual physically leaving the present timeframe, and moving into another (previous) timeframe.
Theoretical Possibility: As outlined by the theory of general relativity, it is conceivably possible to tra
vel to an earlier point in time (though never to a later one). This is achieved, on the simplest level, by an individual departing from one point so rapidly (faster than light speed) that they arrive at their destination earlier than the moment at which they departed.
Of course, based on the same Einsteinian principles, it is not feasible to imagine accelerating a physical object (i.e., a rocket in space) to a speed at or beyond light speed, simply due to the firm limit of the constant c.
However, our 1.0 technology is built on the principle of Bell’s theorem, which shows how quantum-level information can be transmitted instantaneously, in defiance of this limit.
Therefore, if a physical object (i.e., a person) could be converted from physical mass into information, the information could conceivably be transmitted in the same quantum-computing manner we have utilized with the 1.0 Prototype.
Translating mass into data may sound counterintuitive, but less so in the theoretical framework of string theory, which views all point-like particles as one-dimensional “strings”—that is, energy with a specific vibration. That vibration determines the mass, charge, and position of the corresponding particle in physical space. So it is conceivable that, with the proper arrangement, said data (and therefore, said particles) could be transmitted to an earlier point in time.
To use a broad analogy: this could be thought of as akin to a fax machine, which translates a physical object through visual/optical data into a signal, transmits the signal at a distance, and then “prints” the object back into physical form on the other end.
Of course, this requires a fax machine on both ends—it is not possible to transmit a fax to a location without a fax machine. Similarly, a “2.0” device would need a destination for the transmitted subject to “land” in, which means that the machine could never transmit anyone/anything to an earlier point in time than when the device was first built.
Theoretical Limitation: The primary limitation comes in the fact that translating a given particle/string into pure information (so it could be transmitted to an earlier point) can be achieved only with infinite energy density, on par with a black hole.
The Difference from 1.0 Technology: The existing technology we’ve created allows information to loop to an earlier point in time, which means that the timeline remains unaltered by its usage.
However, a technology that transmits a physical presence (esp. a human presence) would potentially enable a deliberate alteration of events, and a splitting of the timelines, creating two (or more) parallel realities. This concept is understandable mainly in terms of multiverse theory (e.g., Hugh Everett’s Multiple-Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics paradoxes).
That said, such possible alteration of the timeline is by no means a certainty. It is possible that, if this technology will be invented someday, then it already has been invented, and time-travelers are already among us. Experimental investigation would be required to determine which fundamental framework of reality corresponds to truth.
Existential Limitations: It is not clear that transporting a body to an earlier time would protect the mind contained therein. Even setting aside notions like “the soul,” it is possible that a brain perfectly transported through time would nonetheless fail to preserve the consciousness contained within it.
Moreover, even if the transmission were successful, the transported individual would be unable to return to his present, and would permanently be stranded in the past. He would effectively become one of two bodies in the timeframe, raising problematic ontological questions:
Could both “individuals” survive and coexist?
Would the “traveler” have agency and free will in the new timeline?
If so, would he theoretically have the ability to change the past?
CHAPTER 18
EMAIL—OCTOBER 4, 2021
From: Adhvan Chaudry
To: Leila Keener-Boyce
L—
Could you do me a favor?
Check out this email that I pulled from the Prototype?
(Which, apparently, I’m going to write six months from now).
Quoted Text:
((B—
Everything is looking legit on the manufacturing specs.
The pricing guide numbers are just as they should be.
Hope you and Leila are doing well.
—A))
Does this honestly sound like me?
—A
REPLY
Hey A,
I don’t really understand your question. But you write emails in a pretty distinct way, and this is definitely in that style.
Looking at it again, I guess…you don’t usually call me Leila. And I guess that saying this to Ben is a little weird, in light of what happened. But hopefully that just means he’s not going to find out, and we’re all going to go back to everything being normal. Right?
REPLY
L—
I can literally never imagine a universe where I’d say “legit.”
And everything back to normal…maybe.
But I’d never say something so disingenuous.
I’m not going to try to convince you to blow up your life,
but I’m never going to pretend everything is fine.
I love you.
—A
REPLY
Hey A,
Come on, we talked about this. You know how I feel. But it breaks my heart and rips me up to even see those words. It’s up to you how you want to manage your friendship with Ben from here on out, but I just don’t see what’s gained by not at least trying to be nice. If we’re going to keep this quiet, let’s really keep it quiet, right? And with respect to the email, I don’t really even understand what you’re getting at…
REPLY
L—
What if someone in the future is spoofing my emails?
Ben has currently locked me out of using the Prototype…
so I’ve been looking through the correspondence I have in my records,
and I’ve noticed it’s pretty fucking sparse.
Like, I’m only sending a couple brief emails a day.
All very similar, and don’t say much.
Made me start to wonder:
what if the messages in my account are written by someone else?
All so that when I look ahead, it seems like I’m there,
it seems like I’m alive and happily working away,
even if I’m not.
—A
REPLY
Hey A,
OK, I hear where you’re going with this, and I just want to say, let’s not overreact. Keep in mind, you’ve been here before, even if it’s been a few years now. Last time, you thought that it was the other people in your department. Now you think it’s your coworkers. This is a pattern.
I get it, you’re under a lot of stress. It’s easy when a lot is being asked of your brain to want to stay sharp and then maybe you don’t take your meds at normal times. I’m gonna come over and we’re going to just sit down and talk so we can nip this in the bud and be healthy, happy, and calm. We all love you and you’re going to be OK.
REPLY
L—
Et tu?
—A
MENLO PARK MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC
Intake Session Notes—Mar 7, 2019
Patient: Adhvan Chaudry
Intake Counselor: Dr. Ana Dawoud
PRECIPITATING EVENTS FOR HOSPITALIZATION:
Campus police were alerted that Patient was suffering from psychotic episode, after Patient’s phone conversation with a friend earlier in the night.
Officers found Patient bleeding on the lawn in front of Stanford Uni
versity Student Services Building. Patient had destroyed several windows by hand, and left arm was severely cut from punching through glass. Patient was at risk for lethal exsanguination if he had not been discovered, but he nonetheless attempted to evade officers. Following medical hospitalization, Patient was arrested for destruction of property and resisting arrest.
DIAGNOSIS HISTORY:
Patient has been assessed for Bipolar Personality Disorder since age 17. Intake assessment affirms BPD as appropriate diagnosis, along with indications of comorbid Social Anxiety Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
Patient has also been assessed for substance abuse issues (age 17) but reports he was only using cannabis to treat his anxiety, and has not had any substance abuse issues since beginning pharma treatment for his diagnoses.
MEDICATION HISTORY:
Patient has been medicated with lithium, antipsychotics (Zyprexa, Risperdal), anticonvulsants (Depakote), SSRIs (Lexapro, Paxil, Zoloft) and benzodiazepines (Xanax, Ativan, Valium). At time of episode, Patient’s most recent treatment therapy included Risperdal, Paxil, Ativan. Patient reports he had discontinued regular use of all but the Ativan for the past 3 to 4 months, blaming side effects of sluggishness, diminishment of full mental capacity, impotence.
TREATMENT HISTORY:
Patient has received inpatient psychiatric treatment 2x (age 17, age 21) and has been consistently treated on an outpatient basis.