---on 100% predictability: This is related to the "Laplacean Deity" conversation between Napoleon and the mathematician Laplace. But before getting into that, science as a whole discounts 100% prediction as an impossibility, a literal impossibility - not simply due to the lack of refinement of measurement tools. This is due to Heinsenberg's Uncertainty principle on a finely-grained quantum level. Given that one can posit an infinite level of precision in one "conjugate variable" (say momentum); then there's a tradeoff with position. Thus, the standard orthodox position is that 100% prediction on all levels is an impossibility. However, this in no way prevents experimental setups in which there is a constant improvement in predictive power. It's just that in most cases one will not reach 100% depending upon the experiment; since such predictions would require an infinite amount of information about all quantum particles. In chaotic systems, predictions at most "work" in a two-body system, say - predicting the positions of the earth vs the moon after x amount of time. But as soon as you create a 3-body problem (say earth, moon, and some other body); predictions become intractable after a few iterations. Now back to Laplace. Napoleon asked Laplace if he "believed" in "God" (i.e. the Judaeo-Christian Deity - given his knowledge of mathematics (Laplace also delved into physics). Laplace told Napoleon: "I have no need of that hypothesis". What Laplace was getting is that in theory, an Omniscient Deity supposedly would have an infinite amount of knowledge concerning every particle in the universe and a perfect prophetic wisdom resulting from a perfect knowledge of the present and past. But Laplace new that was improbable (even way before the quantum revolution of the 1920's) - and without any knowledge of Heibsenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Laplace believed that the existence of such an all-knowing Being was contrary to what he already knew about natural laws and math. Thus, there is no evidence to this day, of a "Laplacean Deity" - an entity who has total knowledge of every particle in the universe (and who consequently could make 100% certain predictions).
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > On Apr 28, 2008, at 2:05 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > Some, like me and seemingly you, just have > > > NO PROBLEM with the concept of a chaotic > > > universe. We don't know for sure that it > > > IS a chaotic universe, but if it is, cool. > > > > > > Others seem to need a SYSTEM of some kind to > > > keep the concept of chaos out of sight and > > > out of mind. Astrology and Jyotish are systems > > > that believe that they have made chaos under- > > > standable and predictable. The MBTI is a sys- > > > tem for reducing the chaos of possible person- > > > ality types down to an even 16, and thus again > > > rendering chaos understandable and predictable. > > > A belief in God is probably the biggest system > > > for believing that the universe is not chaotic. > > > > > > What I'm noticing in a lot of this discussion > > > is that if you scratch the surface of a habitual > > > skeptic about one system, what you just might > > > find is a prosyletute for another system. > > > > One can believe the universe is chaotic and still have an > > interest in prediction and trend analysis. > > Tell me about it. I work in the field. > > > For example, weather prediction and > > global climate change are best modeled on Chaos and Complexity > > mathematics as it gives the best predictions! > > Only in that case. Other algorithms work > better in other cases. The same engine > that solves effectively for MP problems > wouldn't solve as effectively for CP > problems. > > > Chaos is an important > > basis for weather patterns, but we do use it quite successfully > > in weather prediction. However since it is chaotic, predictions > > are not absolute but follow a certain probability. > > And I have NO PROBLEM with probability. > My issue is simply with the belief in > the possibility of 100% accuracy, in an > infallible system. That just doesn't > seem to give the universe enough credit > in my book. >
