Know everything-computer

**Zewu** · 09-26-2002

Originally posted by kevinalm
Line up a dozen or so billiard balls in a straight line. Aiming along the line, strike the first ball with a cue. You cannot predict the path of the final ball, even assuming a perfect stroke. The difference of a impact of a single air molecule on the first ball can swing the final ball full plus or minus 90 degrees.

What says a computer couldn't compute that?

Originally posted by crag2804
Add to that things like radioactive decay ( another truely random process ).

That process isn't random. Radioactive decay depends on how much energy the atoms are loaded with.

My whole thought is based on that there is no such thing as randomness, and that there's enough computer power to calculate all these things.

**RoD** · 09-26-2002

What says a computer couldn't compute that?

In order for it to be computer you would have to know ahead of the hit exactly what would happen, to know this is IMPOSSIBLE.

**Zewu** · 09-27-2002

Originally posted by Ride -or- Die
In order for it to be computer you would have to know ahead of the hit exactly what would happen, to know this is IMPOSSIBLE.

Maybe today, but not forever.

**crag2804** · 09-27-2002

Here is a link:
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Radioactivity.html
Here is a quote from that link:
"Making a precise prediction of when an individual nucleus will decay is not possible"

Radioactive decay is random, thats why schrodinger chose it as his random process.

"That process isn't random. Radioactive decay depends on how much energy the atoms are loaded with.

My whole thought is based on that there is no such thing as randomness, and that there's enough computer power to calculate all these things."
Please don't make me out a liar zewu to justify your thought process.

**RoD** · 09-27-2002

Maybe today, but not forever

how do u figure, its IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD. IT CANNOT BE DONE, EVER.

**kevinalm** · 09-27-2002

Why can't it be done ever?
It's called the uncertainty principle. In layman's terms, stripped of mathematical jargon, it states that since the momentum and wavelength of light are absolutely linked, there is a limit on the precision with which you can know the simultaneous position and velocity of anything. In the types of nonlinear systems we're talking about, this translates to no matter how accurately you compute, errors in the initial conditions will make your calculation wrong at some point in the future.
In the billiard ball example, an imbalence of a single air molecule impact is enough to make your computation worthless.
It isn't a problem of computer power. Computers are irrelavent to the question. It's the physics.Some systems cannot be modelled. Or more precisely, there are physical limits to the accuracy with which some types of systems can be modelled, to the point where some models are basically worthless, at least in so far as predicting the future state of the system.

**RoD** · 09-28-2002

NOBODY can predict what will happen to the absolute happening when a pool ball is struck because there may always be an unforseen factor.

**kevinalm** · 09-28-2002

Almost right. There ALWAYS is an unforseen factor. That's what Heisenberg is all about. Actually, it sets a minimum error, most systems have errors much greater than his limit.

**Waldo2k2** · 09-28-2002

What says a computer couldn't compute that?

it could compute a PREDICTION of that, but it would have a percentage of a chance of getting it right, and even though it may know how everything works, and have loads of variables loaded for every freakin molecule inthe cueball example it still has teh same percentage of a chance of getting it right. You just don't know what's going to happen. To drive the point home (hopefully for the final time) i ask you to flip a coin. You KNOW that the chances are 50/50...but knowing that you cannot KNOW the outcome, you may guess, and you may be right...but your prior knowledge would have no bearing on that. A baby could flip a coin, not knowing the chances, and predict heads or tails and have as good of a chance as you, knowing the chances. So I say do not argue things you don't know squat about (zewu i'm talking to you as you were the person who initially asked the question). Hopefully you've learned something here.

**RoD** · 09-29-2002

thank god i was getting ........ed cause it seemed like no one got the point i was trying to make lol.

Well said kev

**Zewu** · 09-29-2002

It's true I don't know much. Do you?

**RoD** · 09-29-2002

apparently more then u in that particular concept :P

**red_baron** · 10-01-2002

if u can calculate the force with wich you flip a coin and calculate the force of graivity and air resistance, as well as knowing the initial state (head or tales before flipping) then u can caluculate if it lands head or tails

(you may need to calculate some other factors but my point is it is possible to calculate what it lands with the appropriate data)

**RoD** · 10-01-2002

if u can calculate the force with wich you flip a coin and calculate the force of graivity and air resistance

You can't predict the air resistance, there could be a sudden gust or change in a molocule that was impossible to predict, u cann't positively predict it.

**lightatdawn** · 10-01-2002

>>My whole thought is based on that there is no such thing as randomness

You're on the right track zewu. Some people here seem to be limiting themselves. In _theory_, this process of calculation _would_ be possible. In reality it would be impossible to calculate all the variables involved.

Theoretically, it would be possible to predict any point in the future if the unit used to calculate, had memory capacity at least equal to all variables in the existing universe, multiplied by all possible interactions between each of these variables, multiplied but the total possible interactions over the course of time you wished to predict. This hinges on the universe being finite, as if it is not, the capacity of the calculating unit would have to be infinte +1.

Think about it.