> This only demonstrates that the system is chaotic, not that there is no closed form solution. This seems a bit off, it seems like[1] an implicit assertion ("

> This only demonstrates that the system is chaotic, not that there is no closed form solution. This seems a bit off, it seems like[1] an implicit assertion ("only(!) demonstrates") that it is not possible for a system that lacks a closed form solution in fact (beyond our ability to discern) to be demonstrated. To be clear I'm in no way implying this was your intent (I see it as an interesting "quirk" of our culture)...I'm mainly interesting if you can see what I'm getting at. As a thought experiment, stand up two instances: one is our current situation (inability to discern, indeterminate), the other where we have (somehow) proven out (or, come to believe we have, reality being Indirect but experienced as Direct, thus: "is "proven", thus: "is") that a closed form solution is not possible: would the second instance "be(!) a demonstration that the system has no closed form solution"? (Thinking more....I think maybe the choice of the word "demonstrate" may very well make a path to seeking the truth of the matter ~impossible to achieve in these sorts of cases, especially if one takes cultural forces[2] into consideration). [1] Using "pedantry", which few people understand the technical meaning of, and tend to flip flop on depending on what is being considered (precision & accuracy in science/physics is good, precision & accuracy in philosophy/metaphysics is bad - no explanation or justification needed: a Cultural Fact). [2] Which make the 3 body problem in the known to be deterministic physical realm seem like child's play.