# Trope-a-Day: Chronoscope

**URL:** <https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/t/trope-a-day-chronoscope/2139>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [November 7, 2024, 10:35am UTC](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/t/trope-a-day-chronoscope/2139 "2024-11-07T10:35:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![avatar](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/eldraeverse.discourse.group/avatar/32/2_2.png) [@avatar](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/u/avatar)\
**Post date:** [November 7, 2024, 10:35am UTC](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/t/trope-a-day-chronoscope/2139/1 "2024-11-07T10:35:08Z")

</div>

_**[Chronoscope](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Chronoscope?ref=eldraeverse.com):**_ Not _literally_ possible, but the combination of ubiquitous computer/sensor technology coupled with ridiculously huge amounts of computing power to assemble the evidence into a picture can do a damn good imitation of a past-viewing chronoscope. Doing the same thing with prognostication software is, alas, rather more limited, and becomes extremely unreliable more than a couple of seconds out.

(And with a powerful enough telescope, let’s not forget simply looking into/receiving signals from the past with the able assistance of light-lag.)

* * *
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at [https://eldraeverse.com/2016/08/13/trope-a-day-chronoscope](https://eldraeverse.com/2016/08/13/trope-a-day-chronoscope)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![avatar](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/eldraeverse.discourse.group/avatar/32/2_2.png) [@avatar](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/u/avatar)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2025, 9:38pm UTC](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/t/trope-a-day-chronoscope/2139/2 "2025-02-25T21:38:06Z")

</div>

**Comments migrated from WordPress:**

> [@Specialist290 \<specialist290@hughes.net\> on 2016-08-13 17:51:25 wrote](#):
>
> I’d imagine, though, that those extra couple of seconds can make all the difference in the right circumstances.
> 
> > [@Alistair Young \<athanasius.skytower@arkane-systems.net\> on 2016-08-13 18:26:21 wrote](#):
> >
> > [Indeed.](https://eldraeverse.com/2015/08/10/duelist/)
> > 
> > > [@Specialist290 \<specialist290@hughes.net\> on 2016-08-13 18:42:48 wrote](#):
> > >
> > > Which, incidentally, leads me to wonder: Have there ever been any duels won in _zero_ strokes?
> > > 
> > > > [@Alistair Young \<athanasius.skytower@arkane-systems.net\> on 2016-08-14 13:51:55 wrote](#):
> > > >
> > > > In the “my tactical prolepsis shows that I have p\<δ of victory, therefore I concede” sense? Certainly.

> [@Mark Atwood \<me@mark.atwood.name\> on 2016-08-14 04:06:20 wrote](#):
>
> Why is it so glibly deemed impossible? Given that this universe is bloc, it would seem to be in principle not impossible.
> 
> > [@Alistair Young \<athanasius.skytower@arkane-systems.net\> on 2016-08-14 13:48:45 wrote](#):
> >
> > The blockness of the universe is actually half the reason why it’s considered impossible, coupled with the observer effect.
> > 
> > Since you can’t observe a particle without interacting with it, the lack of a bunch of otherwise-inexplicable particle interactions (which would have to have already happened, per the block universe) around significant past events, including but not limited to those chunks of space and time specifically set aside for testing such things, is considered a high-probability proof that no-one’s watching from elsewhen.
> > 
> > > [@Mark Atwood \<me@mark.atwood.name\> on 2016-08-14 16:55:04 wrote](#):
> > >
> > > I read a story years ago, I could find it again, because it started with the death of a famous atheist because terrorists attacked the datacenter that his upload was running in, where they proved in-universe that pure material atheism was not the case because there were places and times where entangled observer interactions were happening from “Outside”.
> > > 
> > > It was after I had read the story, that all of the sudden it hit me what the “Outside” was, and who the Outsiders were. It was the readers of the very story…
> > > 
> > > > [@Alistair Young \<athanasius.skytower@arkane-systems.net\> on 2016-08-14 22:54:09 wrote](#):
> > > >
> > > > Ha! Nicely done, that writer.
> > > 
> > > > [@Mark Atwood \<me@mark.atwood.name\> on 2016-08-15 11:17:01 wrote](#):
> > > >
> > > > Found it.  
> > > > [The Death of Richard Dawkins - Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ez4qVKucyZN_-if5UIvMpfjdqeaFbg8RnBJOA8pOA_0/edit)
> > > > 
> > > > The Death of Richard Dawkins by Steve Yegge
> > > > 
> > > > And the phrase that blew my mind the day after reading it: “there are many more observers this time – and only this time – than even you may suspect or be able to detect”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![avatar](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/eldraeverse.discourse.group/avatar/32/2_2.png) [@avatar](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/u/avatar)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2025, 9:38pm UTC](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/t/trope-a-day-chronoscope/2139/3 "2025-02-25T21:38:06Z")

</div>



---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JAPH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JAPH](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/u/JAPH)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2025, 3:23pm UTC](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/t/trope-a-day-chronoscope/2139/4 "2025-02-28T15:23:43Z")

</div>

> [@Alistair Young \<athanasius.skytower@arkane-systems.net\> on 2016-08-14 13:51:55 wrote](#):
>
> In the “my tactical prolepsis shows that I have p\<δ of victory, therefore I concede” sense? Certainly

Here and in many other places, you use “δ” where I would expect “ε”. Why?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![january1may](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@january1may](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/u/january1may)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2025, 3:57pm UTC](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/t/trope-a-day-chronoscope/2139/5 "2025-02-28T15:57:07Z")

</div>

> **[delta](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/D/delta.html)**

> 1. n. A small quantity, but not as small as [_epsilon_](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/epsilon.html). The jargon usage of [_delta_](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/D/delta.html) and [_epsilon_](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/epsilon.html) stems from the traditional use of these letters in mathematics for very small numerical quantities, particularly in ‘epsilon-delta’ proofs in limit theory (as in the differential calculus). The term [_delta_](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/D/delta.html) is often used, once [_epsilon_](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/epsilon.html) has been mentioned, to mean a quantity that is slightly bigger than [_epsilon_](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/epsilon.html) but still very small. “The cost isn’t epsilon, but it’s delta” means that the cost isn’t totally negligible, but it is nevertheless very small. Common constructions include within delta of —, within epsilon of —: that is, ‘close to’ and ‘even closer to’.

…or, at least, I’m guessing it’s something closely related to that. Certainly it’s common in math to use δ for a small quantity (both in this context, and in the “incremental change” context, which is sense 1 at the link).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![avatar](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/eldraeverse.discourse.group/avatar/32/2_2.png) [@avatar](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/u/avatar)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 2025, 7:35pm UTC](https://eldraeverse.discourse.group/t/trope-a-day-chronoscope/2139/6 "2025-03-06T19:35:12Z")

</div>

@january1may sniped me on this one, but that, basically, yeah.

It was techjargon adopted into my vocabulary long before I learned about epsilon-delta limits, etc., and I usually make delta-fine distinctions before moving onward to epsilon-fine distinctions, so δ is the one I default to first.