Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: why FTL is illegal (wrt: free will).
Message-ID: <20@spar.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 10:42:10 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.20
Posted: Thu Jan  3 10:42:10 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 01:59:06 EST
References: <683@gloria.UUCP> <785@ariel.UUCP>  <148@lems.UUCP> <152@talcott.UUCP> <277@rlgvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 26

Sorting thru back net.physics articles, I encountered this item from 
Guy Harris:

>> 2)  QM is not necessary for your conclusion.  All you need is a *non-linear
>> system*.  In a non-linear system, the tiniest local deviation can have
>> serious global consequences.
>
>But that just says that the universe just appears random because we haven't
>looked in great enough detail.  If you assume 1) a deterministic and
>complete theory of how the universe works, 2) 100% no exclusions complete
>knowledge of the initial state of the universe, and 3) enough computing
>ability to crank the model forward from that initial state, you can predict
>all future states of the universe.

I'm willing to grant that perfect knowledge of Guy's (1) and (2) are
at least logically possible. 

That remaining item, number (3) seems to require closer scrutiny. Correct
me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that even the simplest Newtonian models
of the universe result in intrinsically INSOLUBLE differential equations
(like the three-body problem). 

Doesn't this mean that prediction is impossible, even in a vanilla
Newtonian universe with more than two objects? 

-michael