Do You Believe?

[Zara]

^

@AnnaBB..you are sweetheart

@Pa..iknow you and Heid think alike

[schadenfreude]

1) Predicting things with 100% accuracy is impossible.

2) The more chaotic system the shorter time you can predict it's behaviour

1) + 2) => No, I don't believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong.

1) Predicting things with 100% accuracy is only possible in the short-run.

2) The more chaotic system the shorter time you can predict it's behaviour

1) + 2) => I believe that prediction can have a 100% accuracy, but only in the short-run.

[Zara]

Heid check this..wow how can this be possible

http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/mindreader.htm

[red_ed]

1) Predicting things with 100% accuracy is impossible.

2) The more chaotic system the shorter time you can predict it's behaviour

1) + 2) => No, I don't believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong.

1) Predicting things with 100% accuracy is only possible in the short-run.

2) The more chaotic system the shorter time you can predict it's behaviour

1) + 2) => I believe that prediction can have a 100% accuracy, but only in the short-run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ummm, you've changed the 1st premise of Pa's argument.

Actually, you've kind of done away with premise 2. That seems to be just an explanation.

If you look at your first premise and your conclusion, they're one and the same thing

[schadenfreude]

1) Predicting things with 100% accuracy is impossible.

2) The more chaotic system the shorter time you can predict it's behaviour

1) + 2) => No, I don't believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong.

1) Predicting things with 100% accuracy is only possible in the short-run.

2) The more chaotic system the shorter time you can predict it's behaviour

1) + 2) => I believe that prediction can have a 100% accuracy, but only in the short-run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ummm, you've changed the 1st premise of Pa's argument.

Actually, you've kind of done away with premise 2. That seems to be just an explanation.

If you look at your first premise and your conclusion, they're one and the same thing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Either they are the same or they contradict.

If they contradict, there is no way anyone can come to a conclusion.

[red_ed]

Being able to predict something does not imply that you can predict it 100% of the time.

Just look at the weather. It is a chaotic system and we can normally only predict within 3 days accurately, but even then, there are cases where the Bureau of Meterology has predicted incorrectly, even with-in the 3 day time frame.

I hope I've answered whatever it is you're saying in that previous post. I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

[schadenfreude]

Heid check this..wow how can this be possible

http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/mindreader.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a simple math game.

Whatever number you are thinking, it will end up in the same way.

[red_ed]

I remember a David Copperfield trick similar to this one! He had 10 pictures and you think of a number and blah blah blah whichever one you choose it always ended on the one picture

[schadenfreude]

I remember a David Copperfield trick similar to this one! He had 10 pictures and you think of a number and blah blah blah whichever one you choose it always ended on the one picture

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not even a David Copperfield trick.

Many amateur magicians use that trick, they especially love to combine this with cards.

[worshipper pa]

@Pa..iknow you and Heid think alike

Alike? I don't think so.

[worshipper pa]

Wrong.

1) Predicting things with 100% accuracy is only possible in the short-run.

2) The more chaotic system the shorter time you can predict it's behaviour

1) + 2) => I believe that prediction can have a 100% accuracy, but only in the short-run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please don't humiliate yourself arguing these things with worshipper pa.

What is the time limit of short-run? One second? Four minutes? Two days? No matter how short the time is you can't predict the behaviour with 100% accuracy. Of course in slow deterministic systems you can do insanely accurate prediction in the short-run but that's not 100%, it's 99,99999999999% or something like that. The prediction errors are so small we can't measure them! The predictions seem 100% accure when they are not.

[schadenfreude]

Hmmm... I was under the impression that a Laplace Demon can predict the future, as long as it's not too far away. Say within a century.

[worshipper pa]

Being able to predict something does not imply that you can predict it 100% of the time.

Just look at the weather. It is a chaotic system and we can normally only predict within 3 days accurately, but even then, there are cases where the Bureau of Meterology has predicted incorrectly, even with-in the 3 day time frame.

I hope I've answered whatever it is you're saying in that previous post. I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have to separate two things, accurate and correct predictions. A prediction can be correct without being accurate. For example I can predict that you reply this post within the next 2 hours. If you do so, my prediction has been 100% correct but not that accute. When it comes to predicting wheather we can predict what kind of wheather it's going to be day after tomorrow but not what it is going to be exactly.

[worshipper pa]

Hmmm... I was under the impression that a Laplace Demon can predict the future, as long as it's not too far away. Say within a century.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Laplace Demons have overestimated their capabilities.

[red_ed]

Isn't LaPlace's daemon basically saying, if you know EVERYTHING there is to know about a system at one point in time, then (theoretically) you can calculate and predict the behaviour of that system indefinitely?

Thread status: Hijacked!

[worshipper pa]

Isn't LaPlace's daemon basically saying, if you know EVERYTHING there is to know about a system at one point in time, then (theoretically) you can calculate and predict the behaviour of that system indefinitely?

Thread status: Hijacked!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but the trick is to know everything with 100% accuracy. In practise that's impossible.

[red_ed]

Isn't LaPlace's daemon basically saying, if you know EVERYTHING there is to know about a system at one point in time, then (theoretically) you can calculate and predict the behaviour of that system indefinitely?

Thread status: Hijacked!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but the trick is to know everything with 100% accuracy. In practise that's impossible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In practice, daemons don't help us either

can you feel the hijack?

[schadenfreude]

Isn't LaPlace's daemon basically saying, if you know EVERYTHING there is to know about a system at one point in time, then (theoretically) you can calculate and predict the behaviour of that system indefinitely?

Thread status: Hijacked!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but the trick is to know everything with 100% accuracy. In practise that's impossible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's possible to do with a very specific goal, using a supercomputer powered by quantum technology.

Thread status: Hijacked!

[worshipper pa]

It's possible to do with a very specific goal, using a supercomputer powered by quantum technology.

Quantum physics is about uncertainties!

Future of this thread: Unknown.

[schadenfreude]

It's possible to do with a very specific goal, using a supercomputer powered by quantum technology.

Quantum physics is about uncertainties!

Future of this thread: Unknown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't have to know how it works, but you can utilise it.

So, Michael Crichton told us.