3 ms·

> The list of contradictions to this statement is massive Don't confuse complexity and practical inability to predict with fundamental lack of predictability.

> The list of contradictions to this statement is massive Don't confuse complexity and practical inability to predict with fundamental lack of predictability. At it's base nature appears to act according to the laws of quantum physics + general relativity. On top of the quantum level, we stack a hierarchy of more abstract laws of how things behave at larger scale, so we have the standard particle model, chemistry, classical physics, etc, stacked upon that. Due to current limits of computing, as well as the (mathematically) chaotic behavior of larger scale systems, we may not - as a matter of practicality - be able to predict their behavior, at least not based on a quantum level description, but that doesn't mean the laws of predictability ave abandoned us and the larger scale system has a mind of its own!

GPerson 5y ago
“ Don't confuse complexity and practical inability to predict with fundamental lack of predictability.” Nothing is being confused. The list of contradictions to the statement is not limited in only this way, and I haven’t suggested it is. It seems like you’re saying, “what really happens” is reducible to the physical theories we have today, and if not then it will be reducible to the physical theories we’ll eventually have, or would have if we were smart enough. It seems like a matter of faith to think everything is reducible to precise theory. My personal belief is that “what really happens” is not entirely reducible to any kind of humanly expressible logic. To throw out some brand name contradictions to the original statement: What is dark matter? Is there a theory of quantum gravity? What is consciousness? How does the universe exist? Is there any kind of fundamental randomness? What about the fact that every theory studied involves idealizations like the real numbers? Are any two atomic particles of the same mathematical type actually the same? How about the known existence of unprovable mathematical statements (Godel’s first theorem)? (Also insert here every great unsolved math problem.)
- HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
  > what is dark matter Dunno. Does it even exist? Is there any inkling of this proposed stuff NOT acting according to some deducible laws. Seems pretty boring stuff - interacts with regular matter just via gravity. Do we have it in our head ? :-) > is there a theory of quantum gravity Is that a practical issue for predicting behavior of physical systems at any given scale? I'm pretty sure we don't need quantum gravity to adequately understand the chemistry of our brains. > what is consciousness Self-introspection via feedback paths in the brain. Damage those feedback paths and you'll get a condition such as "blind sight" where you can provably see, but not be aware of your ability to see. > how does the universe exist Dunno, but we're in it, and governed by how things behave in it. That question seems a bit off-topic regarding free will within our universe! > is there any kind of fundamental randomness Dunno. I'd bet not. Does it matter at the level of classical physics and above? > are two particles of same type actually the same Not sure what you're referring to. The Pauli exclusion principle? > how about Godel's incompleteness theorems, etc What's the relevance to the discussion? I can't prove what the stock market is going to do tomorrow either.

GPerson 5y ago

“ Don't confuse complexity and practical inability to predict with fundamental lack of predictability.” Nothing is being confused. The list of contradictions to the statement is not limited in only this way, and I haven’t suggested it is. It seems like you’re saying, “what really happens” is reducible to the physical theories we have today, and if not then it will be reducible to the physical theories we’ll eventually have, or would have if we were smart enough. It seems like a matter of faith to think everything is reducible to precise theory. My personal belief is that “what really happens” is not entirely reducible to any kind of humanly expressible logic. To throw out some brand name contradictions to the original statement: What is dark matter? Is there a theory of quantum gravity? What is consciousness? How does the universe exist? Is there any kind of fundamental randomness? What about the fact that every theory studied involves idealizations like the real numbers? Are any two atomic particles of the same mathematical type actually the same? How about the known existence of unprovable mathematical statements (Godel’s first theorem)? (Also insert here every great unsolved math problem.)

HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
> what is dark matter Dunno. Does it even exist? Is there any inkling of this proposed stuff NOT acting according to some deducible laws. Seems pretty boring stuff - interacts with regular matter just via gravity. Do we have it in our head ? :-) > is there a theory of quantum gravity Is that a practical issue for predicting behavior of physical systems at any given scale? I'm pretty sure we don't need quantum gravity to adequately understand the chemistry of our brains. > what is consciousness Self-introspection via feedback paths in the brain. Damage those feedback paths and you'll get a condition such as "blind sight" where you can provably see, but not be aware of your ability to see. > how does the universe exist Dunno, but we're in it, and governed by how things behave in it. That question seems a bit off-topic regarding free will within our universe! > is there any kind of fundamental randomness Dunno. I'd bet not. Does it matter at the level of classical physics and above? > are two particles of same type actually the same Not sure what you're referring to. The Pauli exclusion principle? > how about Godel's incompleteness theorems, etc What's the relevance to the discussion? I can't prove what the stock market is going to do tomorrow either.