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