Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site sunybcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!sunybcs!rosen
From: rosen@sunybcs.UUCP (Jay Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Non-linear systems.
Message-ID: <1027@sunybcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Jan-85 13:06:21 EST
Article-I.D.: sunybcs.1027
Posted: Thu Jan 10 13:06:21 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 04:13:27 EST
References: <209@talcott.UUCP>, <328@rlgvax.UUCP> <384@hou2g.UUCP>
Organization: State University of New York @ Buffalo,NY
Lines: 46

(long quotes at end of article)

[And now, for the BIG MONEY, is the universe ... Random?]

Since it is highly unlikely (do you have any idea how high I mean)
that the matter will be resolved by anything approaching direct
testing.  The question on whether the universe is fundamentally
random, or only so in New Jersey, is most likely moot (as far as
physics is concerned) unless it can be argued that somehow the
choice of one view would yield different predictions that could
either be supported or lambasted.  I seriously doubt that either system
couldn't completely account for the other, and no test (including
Occum's disposable razor) could cast a deciding vote.
Does that mean that it doesn't matter which philosophical bent you
(the physics community) choose?  Of course not.  I personaly
think that the frame of mind that settles for the "well, all in 
all, its random, let's go home I'm hungry" approach is not a good one.
Once you accept randomness as the underlining mechanism, there is no
longer a drive to study it.  Just like it is not uncommon for people
to think that human behavior is random (don't believe me, sit in on
a good intro to AI class and listen to some comments).  
The upshot is that saying its random, I believe, can easily 
induce the attitude of "Why bother?".  This is a
dangerous axiom to hold as the underlining and most basic principle
of physics.

Of course, I'm probably wrong.

Jay Rosenberg
> > 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