Ultimate (or Total) Predictability

[DJlaysitup]

OK - I realize that this will seem goofy to most - but I have heard of this theory and read about it some and with the constant advances in "mega-gigabytes" and ultra-high speed videography...we are creeping towards this. It really is being pursued....(especially by the military).

What is Ultimate Predictability? It means being able to predict - accurately - everything that happens in the natural world.

Now the variables are immense - but all of those variables are governed by principles of nature (like gravity) and can be predicted. So, if scientists and physics experts and many other experts can plug in ALL the data and formulas...ultimate predictabilty should be possible.

As an example - you drop a wine glass onto the floor and it breaks...sending little pieces of glass all over your kitchen floor. IF you could program in all the variables (like shape and composition of the glass, precise angle of impact onto the floor, breaking points, texture of the floor, temperature, humidity, etc., etc., etc. you should be able to predict where every single piece of broken glass will end up on that floor and even know the shape and size of those pieces. If you can control (or predict) every variable - you should be able to do this.

The implications of this theory on our natural world would be immense. It could end up in a situation where the future can actually be predicted. Weather patterns would not only be tracked - but would be fully understood and could (possibly) be altered. Even if alteration is too grand of an idea...full knowledge of what will happen well in advance would be extremely valuable. Mother Nature might not be tamed - but full understanding and predictability would be similar to domesticating her.

It's an interesting theory and some research into this theory is going on now. As a mathematical type of person, I tend to agree with the theory, but I doubt that I will be alive to see much of the outcomes of the research. The variables are simply too vast.

Edited February 5, 2011 by DJlaysitup

[AHF]

I think this is a fantasy notion right now. If you could somehow come up with ultimate knowledge to frame your factors, that might make sense but a lot of what may be influential factors could be random or not measurable in a meaningful way (such as factors influencing human behavior).

Here is one example of something that would have to be resolved:

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not a statement about researchers' ability to measure the quantities. Rather, it is a statement about the system itself. That is, a system cannot be defined to have simultaneously singular values of these pairs of quantities. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2π).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Bohr and Heisenberg's thoughts in this area, along with those of many others, certainly raise the possibility that some factors will be inherently unpredictable and/or unmeasurable.

[DJlaysitup]

....Bohr and Heisenberg's thoughts in this area, along with those of many others, certainly raise the possibility that some factors will be inherently unpredictable and/or unmeasurable.

I agree with the idea that we are FAR away from ultimate predictability...but I don't agree that isn't theoretically possible.

==================

Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty.

==================

In 1927 the jet engine was yet to be invented and the idea of orbiting satellites that give me Directv weren't even thought of in theory. So for a person to say certain things are "unmeasureable" in 1927 holds little water in the current day IMO.

If you take out the human element (and to some degree animal element) - everything is predictable. I would tend to say that it will be a thousand years in the future...but then...my Grandpa was born in 1896 (and lived to be a hundred years old). During his life he saw the invention of the automobile, the airplane, flew out to Los Angeles in a 727 jet to be at his Granddaughters wedding...and saw a man walk on the moon. He basically saw the telephone invented (for actual use) and it went from a rural party line to a cellular phone.

[frosgrim]

Interesting idea. I recently wrote a proposal on how to predict population-level reactions to mass causulty events. What we ended up proposing was very complex and probably will only marginally work given the state of our knowledge about local populations, culture, economics, cross-cultural disaster psychology, just to name some of the factors we were able to put into the model. Beyond that you have to have knowledge about what the event is, where it is located and all other events that were happening before the event.

It was an interesting thought process and I think it has potential, but the modeling is still in its infancy. It will need a cluster of super computers to run as well (but we have access to this cluster).

Point is, there is definately interest at the federal level in producing these sorts of models. I think everyone understands we are a long way from getting there, but by investing now, we can get there in the future.

[AHF]

I agree with the idea that we are FAR away from ultimate predictability...but I don't agree that isn't theoretically possible.

==================

Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty.

==================

In 1927 the jet engine was yet to be invented and the idea of orbiting satellites that give me Directv weren't even thought of in theory. So for a person to say certain things are "unmeasureable" in 1927 holds little water in the current day IMO.

If you take out the human element (and to some degree animal element) - everything is predictable. I would tend to say that it will be a thousand years in the future...but then...my Grandpa was born in 1896 (and lived to be a hundred years old). During his life he saw the invention of the automobile, the airplane, flew out to Los Angeles in a 727 jet to be at his Granddaughters wedding...and saw a man walk on the moon. He basically saw the telephone invented (for actual use) and it went from a rural party line to a cellular phone.

Are you really arguing that because the original Heisenberg theory was developed in 1927 and even though it's progeny is still very much a key part of the theories of many current scientists that we should just disregard it? Just because the theory of gravity was developed > 100 years ago doesn't mean we should ignore the refined version of that theory today. There are a great many scientists who believe that certain items are entirely unpredictable and others entirely unmeasurable for a variety of reasons. In humans, think about the number of factors that influence human behavior and how you would be able to measure those in sufficient real time that you could derive meaningful predictions. It seems like you would have problems to me:

a) Being able to capture all the data you need in real time to make predictions meaningful and not simply ex post facto exercises;

b) Being able to measure all the variables;

and

c) Being able to predict all outcomes with certainty even with proper and timely information on all variables.

[AHF]

An electron has a quantum state and not a physical state. Asking where an electron is is kind of like asking what the electron's favorite movie is. The question doesn't fit.

Electrons have a minute amount of mass, emit a localized magnetic field, and can be bound to a particular location (such as within an atom) but you are right that I misrepresented the current theory on electrons which state that the probability of an electron's location can be described but that it is in fact not in any specific location except at the time it is measured.

The wave–particle duality can be demonstrated using the double-slit experiment. The wave-like nature of the electron allows it to pass through two parallel slits simultaneously, rather than just one slit as would be the case for a classical particle. In quantum mechanics, the wave-like property of one particle can be described mathematically as a complex-valued function, the wave function, commonly denoted by the Greek letter psi (ψ). When the absolute value of this function is squared, it gives the probability that a particle will be observed near a location—a probability density.

the Schrödinger equation can be used to predict the probability of finding an electron near a position.

Figure 1 shows radial probability distributions for some different states, labelled by spectroscopic notation. The radial probability density tex2html_wrap_inline1414 is defined such that

equation262

is the probability of finding the electron with radial coordinate between r and r+dr.The functions are normalized so that thetotal probability of finding the electron at some location is unity.

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~rt19/hydro/node3.html

The fact that this can only be described as a probability underlines that there may be limits as to what can be predicted, such as whether individual gas particles in a system can be predicted (in contrast to the net energy in a system of gas particles which is predictable). I still have extreme doubts aboutmankind ever having the ability to measure all things and process all such measurements in time to predict all things.

[DJlaysitup]

...I still have extreme doubts about mankind ever having the ability to measure all things and process all such measurements in time to predict all things.

OK and I understand you there...ultimate predictabilty will go through many stages. UP (with proper sensors) will at first maybe predict an earthquake on a fault line...then (much later) may be able to predict it more accuratey due to deeper sensors. This is not an exercise that excludes Engineers. Actually Engineers will be the most important.

Let's say this:

A scientist has a small tube that extends from a bottle of water. The water is colored. At a point the droplet of water falls from the end of the tube onto a large piece of paper.

Every splat is controlled by the forces of nature (primarily gravity)...it seems unbelievable that the direction and exact location of every splat can be predicted - but in truth - the splat is governed by physical laws and it can. Everything should be predictable. :kickcan:

Edited March 5, 2011 by DJlaysitup

[AHF]

Every splat is controlled by the forces of nature (primarily gravity)...it seems unbelievable that the direction and exact location of every splat can be predicted - but in truth - the splat is governed by physical laws and it can. Everything should be predictable. :kickcan:

You have to measure everything relating to the drop of water, the air surrounding the water, the temperature, the material on which it is landing, etc. which seems ultimately achievable to me.

Now if you go post that Roschach-type image created by the splat of an ink drop on a 50 foot glowing billboard in times square can you perfectly predict:

Exactly who will see it

Exactly when they will see it

Exactly what emotional reaction each person will have when they see it

Exactly what object, etc. that image sparks in someone's mind

Exactly what every person will say in reaction to or about it after they see it

Exactly how every conversation will go that occurs about it between two or more people

etc.

I am very skeptical about that.