Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!hou2g!stekas From: stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Non-linear systems. Message-ID: <384@hou2g.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 17:50:46 EST Article-I.D.: hou2g.384 Posted: Mon Jan 7 17:50:46 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 04:13:42 EST References: <209@talcott.UUCP>, <328@rlgvax.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 17 > Again, irrelevant. We're not discussing whether enough Crays can be > constructed to produce real printouts and graphs predicting the future > state of the Universe. We're discussing whether the future state of the > Universe is not predictable *in principle*. The concept of "predicable, in principle" is usefull if and only if it has some connection with reality. If 10^70 Cray's calculating for 10^10 years cannot predict next year's weather then next year's weather is unpredictable. To argue that the weather is predictable "in priciple" is equivalant to saying that "My theory predicts something which is IMPOSSIBLE to calculate, but if we could I'm sure it would be correct!" It wasn't too long ago that any angle could be trisected, pi could be expressed as the ratio of 2 integers, particles positions and momentum could be determined simultaneously, ... In principle, of course. Jim