4 ms·
I pretty much assume that IF we were all knowing of the state of everything (matter, energy, & anything else that is / could be) and IF we were all knowing of t
by skate22 8y ago
I pretty much assume that IF we were all knowing of the state of everything (matter, energy, & anything else that is / could be) and IF we were all knowing of the rules that defined the state transitions that we could predict the future (the state of everything at some observation point)
We will likely never satisfy the above 2 assumptions, but our brains try to do the best they can with their limited sample of data / last gen processors. So sure, we may never predict future states with 100% certainty like above, but definitely with some % > 0
- opportune 8y agonot on an infinitely small scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle on a macro scale, with a reasonable margin of error, sure. The problem comes when small scale effects begin to have large scale consequences: human thought might be chaotic enough (in the physical, not colloquial sense) to be like this. In fact there is a whole branch of physics/math that deals with this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
- skate22 8y agoI'm no expert on chaos theory, or physics, or much of anything, but directly from your 2nd link: "Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future." Seems to support part* of my theory more than defeat it. Perhaps our current understanding of existence does not allow us to predict the future state of complex systems due to our level of uncertanty at a micro scale. Perhaps some day we will come to a better understanding that will. Surely we don't have the full picture yet, but i think we have a lot more reasoning to do before I will accept that existence is unreasonable