• Comment105@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’ve personally accepted that it’s basically predictable/deterministic, but due to how complicated and unknowable the system is there’s no practical way for an outside observer to get all the information.

    I’m guessing the lower resolution imaging methods might still allow more or less accurate prediction, though? We don’t need to know the details on every air molecule to do fairly accurate weather forecasting, so maybe the same approach can work to predict mindweather. Maybe it’s possible to know a person’s brain well enough and accurately adjust predictions very fast after random encounters/events influencing them – like the people they meet, the things they see, and a myriad of other things – and in that way get something more and more capable of predicting behavior?

    I don’t really know much about either field, though.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Even if you had perfect knowledge of the current state of the universe, knew all the laws, you still couldn’t predict shit. The reason is chaos, more precisely: There are no closed-form solutions to chaotic systems. To simulate them you have to go through all the time steps (assuming, without loss of generality1, discrete time), simulate every single of them one after the other, arguably creating a universe while doing so. And you have to do that with the computational resources of the universe you’re trying to simulate. Good luck. Chaos also means that approximate solutions won’t help because sensitivity to small perturbations: There’s no upper bound to how far your approximation will be off.

      1 I can wave my hands faster than you. I dare you. I double-dare you.

      • Comment105@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        First statement is a bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think? We already predict a lot with useful accuracy.

        But I get that in some things, chaos inhibits useful prediction.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Useful becomes useless quite quickly. Yes, we have useful predictions for the weather tomorrow. A week from now? Not really. Two weeks? Could just as well get your prediction from tea leaves.

          And that’s just statistical reliability. Weather predictions are actually allowed to be wrong, when the prediction for tomorrow is off then people shrug their shoulders. Not really what Descartes meant when describing his daemon.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think people were upset the show changed so dramatically half way through but I really liked the whole thing. Some really good actors in it and the first season has a lot of mystery to it