Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!guy From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Non-linear systems. Message-ID: <336@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 21:39:43 EST Article-I.D.: rlgvax.336 Posted: Tue Jan 8 21:39:43 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 02:54:57 EST References: <209@talcott.UUCP>, <328@rlgvax.UUCP> <384@hou2g.UUCP> Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 25 > > 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. The problem is that the connection of any discussion of predictability with reality is tenuous, at best. If you're discussing it in terms of whether you can know what the thermometer is going to read tomorrow, the practical impossibility of making that prediction is important. If you're arguing the philosophical question of whether the universe is a deterministic machine or not, it is *totally irrelevant* whether you can construct a machine which models the universe with 100% accuracy out of real materials. Unless somebody out there has something useful to add to the discussion of the question of whether the universe is a deterministic machine, let's drop the discussion; pointing out that there's nothing out there with which a machine that models the universe can be constructed adds nothing to this particular discussion. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy