Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!hplabs!otter!cdfk From: cdfk@otter.hple.hp.com (Caroline Knight) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Randomness, the universe, and Turing machines Message-ID: <2070021@otter.hple.hp.com> Date: 21 Sep 88 14:10:55 GMT References: <26154@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK. Lines: 27 > >Now scale that model up by many thousand orders of magnitude. Instead >of balls, we have subatomic particles and more subtle forces at work, >but the principle is still the same. We may never haveenough >information to exactly predict events in the universe, or even a >reasonable subregion thereof. But the inability to make the exact >calculation doesn't mean that the universe isn't exactly, completely >deterministic. > >-- >unsigned *Wayne_Mesard(); The last thing one knows in constructing >MESARD@BBN.COM a work is what to put first. >BBN, Cambridge, MA -- Blaise Pascal >---------- Balls are only models of atoms - if the "real" (whatever that means!) form of atoms is different then this argument has no substance. All you have said is: If one can model atoms by something purely deterministic like balls then they are purely deterministic Sounds tautological to me. Caroline Knight HPLabs, Bristol, UK