the possibility of predicting the future

[taylrl]

If you know everything about events leading up to a future occurance, then surely you can predict its outcome, does this mean that is outcome is predetermined. For example. In the lottery, if you knew the exact weight of the balls, the height they were dropped from, all of the coefficients of friction and all other information, e.g. air resistance etc. then surely you could program it into a computer and find the outcome. This Is already being done, to a certain extent with mapping weather systems in supercomputers. e.g. they predicted the effects of hurricane Katrina to a certain extent. If you had a powerful enough computer, and could program in sufficient information, also an in depth knowledge of chaos would need to be known, but we should be able to predict all future outcomes from a single event, even me pressing this fullstop.

[Maddad]

Oh, boy! Classic runs into quantum mechanics!

[taylrl]

sorry waht do you mean by classic runs into quantum mechanics

[zebov]

There are some things that are inherently unknowable. One very important instance of this is the position of an electron. One can never know the exact position of an electron, only a probability that an electron exists in a certain area. Sure, if you knew everything about everything (and I mean EVERYTHING), then there is no reason you would not be able to plug numbers (a lot of them) into formulae (very complex formulae) to figure out future events. However, this would require knowing everything, which is quite a task to undertake. (Imagine trying to understand the simple task of enumerating every charge source in existence).

[taylrl]

Are things which are inherently knowable, theoretically measurable, or is it just that they become unmeasurable through observation? If, for example an electron does actually have a specific location at any given point (its just that we cant measure it) Then surely that implies that all events are predetermined.

[Transdecimal]

That's what I've always wondered.

We can only measure the probability of an electron being in a specific place, but the limits of what is physically measureable should not have any effect on the "truth" of where the electron really is without outside interference.

Imagine being able to "know" where the electron is without needing to physically measure it (sort of like Quantumn ESP) - what would this mean to science?

[ydoaPs]

if you knew the wavefunctions of every particle in the universe, couldn't you theoretically set up an equation that is all possible timelines?

[zebov]

I think perhaps the real question behind all of this is, is there a unique universal outcome for each interaction within the Universe; or, are there interactions in the universe that have multiple possible outcomes given the exact universal parameters. If the former is true, then if all parameters are known about any point in time, then there would only be one possible path for every interaction in the future ("predetermined"). If the latter is true, then there would be no way to determine precisely any future event, even if all parameters are known about the present (or past) (not "predetermined").

The matter may be rather a moot point though, being that it is not possible to know all the parameters of any point in time (as far as I know of at least); personally, I would like to think that my thoughts are my own and not the result of a mathematical function. I believe I am starting to digress, so I'm going to stop now.

[Transdecimal]

Even if it is true, wouldn't conciousness throw randomise things a little, as people would have free will of how they interact with the rest of the Universe, and therefore you can't predict the flow of energy from one object to another.

Of course, when you think about planet Earth and the Ecosystem as a whole, I don't think it's really going to matter if you catch a ball or let it bounce off your head.

[taylrl]

I suppose your opinion on that will be determined by how you feel about quntum mind theory. Is conciousness itself a result of quantum interactions?

[Severian]

If, for example an electron does actually have a specific location at any given point (its just that we cant measure it) Then surely that implies that all events are predetermined.

But that is the point. It doesn't. This was the whole point of the double slit experiment with electrons. It genuinely does go through both slits because it does not actually have a specific location.

[taylrl]

if it dosent have a specific location, does that mea that it dosent exist within our conventional 3 dimensions

[Chaotic1]

Read about Edward Lorenz's work. He dealt with the weather, he was a meteorologist. He had modelled (rather over-simplified), the weather system as a set of simple differential equations. He had set out to achieve complete predictability, if not for the real weather, at least for the computer model. But surprisingly, he found that the computer model itself was unpredictable. He found Sensitivity to Initial Conditions (SICness). A situation, where even the best of computers cannot really predict the long-term behavior. Yes, by building powerful computers and algorithms, by considering more and more factors, and by doing more and more accurate calculations, we may be able to improve weather prediction from hours to days to probably weeks. But the system as such, in real long term, is unpredictable. I hope I do not sound out of context. Hmm... Maybe I do. I'll stop here.

[Transdecimal]

I was reading about experiments with double-slit type experiments where the photons were passed through 4 slits, when you could tell if a photon passed through A or B it would act like a particle, but if you didn't know whether it passed through C or D it would act like a wave!

That's spooky, right there!

[blackhole123]

Chaos Theory

[[Tycho?]]

Even if it is true, wouldn't conciousness throw randomise things a little, as people would have free will of how they interact with the rest of the Universe, and therefore you can't predict the flow of energy from one object to another.

Of course, when you think about planet Earth and the Ecosystem as a whole, I don't think it's really going to matter if you catch a ball or let it bounce off your head.

I've never understood why people think consciousness is random like that. I first thought of this back on grade 4, and knowing that the brain worked with electricity (not too accurate I know, but I was in grade 4). I figured that our brain is just a complex machine, and given a certain stimulus, certain neurons would fire, which would cause us to think something. If you could turn back time and view that event again and again, I saw no reason why a person wouldn't react the same way every time.

[[Tycho?]]

Chaos Theory

Uh...... ok...... is that supposed to mean something to us?

[blackhole123]

chaos theory states that predicting the future IS possible if you know the extact initial conditions. the problem is that even if you are off by the smallest bit that it will have a huge effect on the outcome. kind of like the butterfly effect. so it is possible in theory but you would have to have an infinite amount of numbers which right now is impossible.

[Transdecimal]

']I've never understood why people think consciousness is random like that. I first thought of this back on grade 4, and knowing that the brain worked with electricity (not too accurate I know, but I was in grade 4). I figured that our brain is just a complex machine, and given a certain stimulus, certain neurons would fire, which would cause us to think something. If you could turn back time and view that event again and again, I saw no reason why a person wouldn't react the same way every time.
So you don't believe in free will?

[Klaynos]

if it dosent have a specific location, does that mea that it dosent exist within our conventional 3 dimensions

No it just means it's a wave not a particle :P (I know someone is going to shout at me for this but it's very early morning and feel like making sensationalist statements)

Chaos theory is a valid point to raise here.

If we knew the wave forms of everything in the universe then we could make a statistical guess at the most probable outcome of the future but it wouldn't be 100% accurate, as is the way of probability wave functions describing things...

[Templar]

if you knew the wavefunctions of every particle in the universe, couldn't you theoretically set up an equation that is all possible timelines?

No.
The wavefunction constains a collection of eigenstates and probability amplitudes for them. With wavefunction, you can at most say somethime like this: after a measurement of momentum, chances you get 9 is %32, 15 %60, etc. You can predict the possibilities of measurement outcomes, in theory. In real life, add the experimental errosr and the fact that you usually don't know the wavefunction.

[Saryctos]

No it just means it's a wave not a particle :P (I know someone is going to shout at me for this but it's very early morning and feel like making sensationalist statements)
Is it at all possible that light particles are in everything, but can only be observed when they move, i.e. lightwaves? making light a particle, but also a wave in a sense?

[mimefan599]

Chaos Theory

It's actually a wave particle duality if you are talking about how a photon acts like a wave or a particle in certain contextes. Or if you are talking about the OP then I will shut up.

[Redrang604]

The problem with all these arguments about electrons being particles or waves is the fact that they are neither. There is nothing in classical physics that can descibe them. The ideas of wave or particle are simplifications.

[ecoli]

I wonder how possible Asimov's psychohistory is (read the foundation series). In those books, they are able to reduce the future to statistical probabilities because, let's face it, human behavior is predictable on large levels. (mob psychology) Just think about how many things in history repeat themselves.

Political analysts try to predict the outcomes of policy, but if you were able to quantify this in some way, perhaps it wouldn't be too far fetched, despite the many variables that go into it.

[reor]

I guess probability is the best we can get. There IS something like a "main pattern", you can see examples everywhere in nature, but an exact prediction (100%) will never be possible, due to data loss on every observation. We can't possibly get EVERY needed information and there will allways be loss.

As to "free will": There is a nice long thread here (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17551&highlight=free):