Support NeoGAF

[Seanspeed]

I'm not talking about stuff like going to a psychic and trying to find out if your lottery numbers will ever actually hit the jackpot, but the large-scale idea of being able to scientifically predict the future(in theory).

It kind of boils down to this - how much of nature is *truly* random? Is there anything, that with enough data and the intelligence to analyze it, could not be predicted ahead of time? Seems to me that everything is kind of predetermined in a way, starting all the way back from the big bang. What we consider 'random', like random mutations and everything, would have to have some kind of explanation for them, right? I mean, what does the word 'random' even mean? Something truly random sounds to me like it'd be some sort of supernatural occurance.

Or what about fate(and in this case, I *do* mean on the human level)? I hear often that the fact that we can make personal choices means that nothing can be certain. But is it impossible to predict what somebody is going to think and thus the choices they make? I mean, the future WILL happen, right? I will decide on what to eat tonight, and there will be a reason for me choosing what I choose. This doesn't sound random to me at all. Can we actually make a random choice? I can do something that somebody will say is random, like making a clucking noise at a completely innappropriate time, but there will always be a reason for why I did that, whether it be to make people laugh, or to make people think I'm a 'random' person, or maybe I've just got a mental disorder that results in me doing things like this.

I'm certainly no expert on anything scientific or mathematical or anything like that, so I apologize if there's one simple little principle that I dont know about explains randomness, but for now, it just doesn't make sense to me. How can anything not have an explanation? I mean, if something is explained mathematically and there's a random in some equation, so you stick a 'random' number in there, where is that number coming from(apart from your mind, of course)? What in nature decides what numbers to put in?

 

[bone idle]

chaos theory

 

[Escape Goat]

Just need to find some Precogs.

 

[DonMigs85]

Can you predict if I suddenly decide to swat the fly that landed on my table, altering the future for all of fly-kind?

 

[Seanspeed]

chaos theory

Chaos theory doesn't really explain anything, though. It suggests that there's an explanation for random events, but it doesn't really say what that explanation is.

Its also just a theory.

Is there merit in it? I'm not dismissing it, just that I'm wondering what people's thoughts on this kind of thing are. I think its great discussion material.

Can you predict if I suddenly decide to swat the fly that landed on my table, altering the future for all of fly-kind?

I know you're just joking, but to make an example out of this, no, *I* cant predict it. But I think if I had sufficient data and an immense capability to understand the data, it could be predicted. There'd be 4,234,523,123,612,526,125 variables to consider, but if you could know all of them, why couldn't you predict what happens?

 

[Yeef]

I know you're just joking, but to make an example out of this, no, *I* cant predict it. But I think if I had sufficient data and an immense capability to understand the data, it could be predicted. There'd be 4,234,523,123,612,526,125 variables to consider, but if you could know all of them, why couldn't you predict what happens?

This always seemed silly to me. Basically, "if you were omniscient wouldn't you know everything?" Of course you would. The real puzzle, I think is, "Is omniscience possible?" I'd think in order to be omniscient you'd have to build your own omniscience into your model of existence recursively on into infinity. That leads me to believe that, no, omniscience isn't possible

Spoiler

but you probably already knew that. I'm onto you!

 

[Danne-Danger]

*paging Hari Seldon*

Sounds like you'd be interested in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series.

 

[Seanspeed]

This always seemed silly to me. Basically, "if you were omniscient wouldn't you know everything?" Of course you would. The real puzzle, I think is, "Is omniscience possible?" I'd think in order to be omniscient you'd have to build your own omniscience into your model of existence recursively on into infinity. That leads me to believe that, no, omniscience isn't possible

Spoiler

but you probably already knew that. I'm onto you!

I think thats short-sighted. In our current state, we're quite ignorant, but compared to just one hundred years ago, we look like freakin alien geniuses. If we can survive for a few thousand more years, imagine how advanced our capabilities will be. We wont even need to be capable of understanding everything ourselves, we might just input data into some super-advanced computer thing(thats a culmination of thousands and thousands of years of human understanding) that will digest the information itself and come out with accurate predictions.

Is this unrealistic? Even if in 5,000 years, we cant predict *everything*, but we would surely be able to predict things more than we can now, right? Who says that in another 1,000 years we couldn't predict even more stuff, and then theoretically, the more understanding and data we get, the closer we get to actually being able to completely predict the future.

Either way, the question is: Is there anything truly random in our reality/universe? If not, then its quite a game changer, if you ask me. It means fate is real, and thats a big deal.

*paging Hari Seldon*

Sounds like you'd be interested in Isaac Asimovs Foundation series.

I've been recommended toward his series before, so I might need to seriously check this out.

*thumbs up*

Would you mind explaining some of whats said in the books?

 

[zero margin]

Nope. The future is shaped by everyone. You might change your own personal future but as a whole, obviously this is different.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I'm not talking about stuff like going to a psychic and trying to find out if your lottery numbers will ever actually hit the jackpot, but the large-scale idea of being able to scientifically predict the future(in theory).

I've been studying this system for 3 years now. I think the general truths of what card you are(and Planetary card) is pretty spot on. There's cards for every day/52 days/years/7 years and so on for your life. It's all spelled out in this book. Give it a look.

http://www.7thunders.com/

 

[jdogmoney]

 

[Seanspeed]

Nope. The future is shaped by everyone. You might change your own personal future but as a whole, obviously this is different.

But this assumes that each individual is unpredictable. Like I said, I'm talking on a large scale.

I said in my OP that I dont think a human can make a random choice, meaning every choice we make is explainable in some way. Can you argue otherwise?

 

[bone idle]

Its also just a theory.

Is there merit in it? I'm not dismissing it, just that I'm wondering what people's thoughts on this kind of thing are. I think its great discussion material.

The theory might not answer all your questions, but it allows insights into fate and predictability. For example, it was once thought that given enough computational power, we'd be able to forecast weather months in advance. It would seem chaos theory puts limits on the dream of ultimate prediction power. There are other theories that limit our ability to predict the future. Quantum theory comes to mind. As far as I can tell, the dream of infinite foresight is a fairytale. But, yes I agree it's a good subject for a thread on gaf.

 

[Danne-Danger]

I've been recommended toward his series before, so I might need to seriously check this out.

*thumbs up*

Would you mind explaining some of whats said in the books?

Well, without spoiling too much, it's a future where they have immensely powerful computers and a formula to predict the future. It's really too epic to try and summarize, but from the books I've read in the series it's about the exact thing you're asking about. Asimov was an 'ol math whiz so it's well rooted in logic. It gets started with that stuff pretty much right of the bat so just jumping into the first (published) book should give you your fill.

 

[Seanspeed]

Mind - blown. :lol

Love it, thanks.

I believe in free will, I just think our final choices are something that could be predicted.

 

[zero margin]

But this assumes that each individual is unpredictable. Like I said, I'm talking on a large scale.

I said in my OP that I dont think a human can make a random choice, meaning every choice we make is explainable in some way. Can you argue otherwise?

I see what you're saying and I can make sense of it but to actually predict something? Oy vey.

 

[Trent Strong]

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 30 seconds after the Big Bang, an infinitely powerfull super computer appeared on the scene. (This hypothetical computer would have every conceivable type of sensor, so it could "see" everything that was happening in every way.) I believe that this computer would be able to predict, with 100% accuracy, every single thing that would ever happen everywhere in the universe, including the behavior and decisions of every person on earth. (Because everyone's behavior and decisions are a product of the physical operations of their brains, and these operations obey the laws of physics.) This computer would predict not only the evolution of humans on earth, but it would predict all of human history, and every thought and action that every person on earth would ever have, no matter how small. It would predict, with absolute accuracy, every word in the song "Maneater", by Hall and Oates. Clearly, this makes me a determinist. I just can't believe in free will. (I'm aware that this argument has been made a million times, except with the word "God" instead of "super computer".)

.

 

[Seanspeed]

The theory might not answer all your questions, but it allows insights into fate and predictability. For example, it was once thought that given enough computational power, we'd be able to forecast weather months in advance. It would seem chaos theory puts limits on the dream of ultimate prediction power. There are other theories that limit our ability to predict the future. Quantum theory comes to mind. As far as I can tell, the dream of infinite foresight is a fairytale. But, yes I agree it's a good subject for a thread on gaf.

With enough data and understanding, why couldn't we predict weather, ya know? Just cuz we're not at that state now, doesn't mean we wont ever be.

Quantam theory is something that I predicted would come up. I'm completely ignorant of how quantum mechanics works, and I dont expect anybody to explain it to me in a meaningful way, but is there anything in this field that really is *truly* random? Thats the big question for me.

Well, without spoiling too much, it's a future where they have immensely powerful computers and a formula to predict the future. It's really too epic to try and summarize, but from the books I've read in the series it's about the exact thing you're asking about. Asimov was an 'ol math whiz so it's well rooted in logic. It gets started with that stuff pretty much right of the bat so just jumping into the first (published) book should give you your fill.

I'll be at Barnes and Noble tomorrow after work now. Sounds just what I'm looking for!

What do you think of his works, if I might ask?

 

[The Technomancer]

Eh, as long as quantum theory is true and there is inherent randomness built into the very fabric of reality, I don't think so. It could turn out that we're wrong about that, but then we'd need a damn good explanation for the seemingly random effects we see, especially because all of our modern electronics depend on one of them.

 

[zero margin]

.

:lol

 

[scoot3r]

So basically u are asking if we could use past data to determine future events? If so then that happens everyday, its statistics at its finest . Im not sure wether or not u are speaking realisticaly or psychically( is that a word?)

 

[Seanspeed]

.

You are me.

Is this just a philosophy, or is this fuckin the real truth?

 

[Yeef]

I think thats short-sighted. In our current state, we're quite ignorant, but compared to just one hundred years ago, we look like freakin alien geniuses. If we can survive for a few thousand more years, imagine how advanced our capabilities will be. We wont even need to be capable of understanding everything ourselves, we might just input data into some super-advanced computer thing(thats a culmination of thousands and thousands of years of human understanding) that will digest the information itself and come out with accurate predictions.

That doesn't really change anything though. The computer would need to take its own existence and ability to predict the future into account in an infinite recursion in order to predict what happens when it predicts what happens when it predicts what happens...


Also, for some reason I am reminded of this comic:

 

[Seanspeed]

Eh, as long as quantum theory is true and there is inherent randomness built into the very fabric of reality, I don't think so. It could turn out that we're wrong about that, but then we'd need a damn good explanation for the seemingly random effects we see, especially because all of our modern electronics depend on one of them.

What about quantum theory explains *true* randomness. How do you even define *true* randomness. What we consider random is merely a matter of thinking of something that we wouldn't have thought of before, but there's GOTTA be a reason for why we thought of it in the first place. Its a culmination of previous learnings that brings us to new ideas. A baby cant comprehend even basic physics, but as we learn things, we start to figure this stuff out. With enough understanding, is there really any limits to what we can or cant figure out?

 

[bone idle]

With enough data and understanding, why couldn't we predict weather, ya know? Just cuz we're not at that state now, doesn't mean we wont ever be.

Some truths are counter-intuitive. While I cannot say these ideas won't be disproved in the future, I can say that what we've found out so far leads to the conclusion that there are too many variables and uncertainties in nature to accurately perform long-term forecasts. Wishing it so won't do.

 

[Seanspeed]

That doesn't really change anything though. The computer would need to take its own existence and ability to predict the future into account in an infinite recursion in order to predict what happens when it predicts what happens when it predicts what happens...

No, a computer needs not take anything into account. Its just a device that we use to store knowledge in, because human memory is faulty and inconsistent.

I'm not saying that in 5,000 years, we could predict everything, but it seems to me, that with every discovery of how things work, we make a better model for predicting the future.

 

[Kraftwerk]

+1 For Isaac Asimov..he has blown my mind many times.

 

[Seanspeed]

Some truths are counter-intuitive. While I cannot say these ideas won't be disproved in the future, I can say that what we've found out so far leads to the conclusion that there are too many variables and uncertainties in nature to accurately perform long-term forecasts. Wishing it so won't do.

You're thinking too realistically. I dont care how 'intuitive' we are about anything, its a theoretical question.

 

[bone idle]

You're thinking too realistically. I dont care how 'intuitive' we are about anything, its a theoretical question.

Intuitions play a large role in our thinking; we're not AIs. Your original question was about our ability to determine the future. If you look into this you'll find that there appear to be limits. It's not my idea, I wouldn't be so bold. Have a look at some of these theories, they're interesting (to say the least). Best of luck.

 

[Danne-Danger]

I'll be at Barnes and Noble tomorrow after work now. Sounds just what I'm looking for!

What do you think of his works, if I might ask?

One thing you'll never be disappointed by when reading an Asimov novel is his ideas. He's a great thinker and a lot of his books feature grand stories on an epic scale, but what's really good about it is that he mostly makes it very convincing. Even though his stuff was written in the fifties, his scientific ideas often manages to feel relevant when reading today, it has a timeless quality to it (still). I don't like much of his small-scale stuff though (like Caves of Steel, for example) and I honestly wouldn't be able to describe many of his characters if you asked me to, but he gets the job done even there.

Foundation is his most impressive work from what I’ve read, sweeping over decades of history on a bunch of different planets. The way he interconnects and plots the events floored me several times while reading the first few books. He can really get the mind going and he is probably my favorite sci-fi writer now that I think about it.

Here's a sample if you need to whet your appetite a bit: The Last Question

 

[Seanspeed]

Intuitions play a large role in our thinking; we're not AIs. Your original question was about our ability to determine the future. If you look into this you'll find that there appear to be limits. It's not my idea, I wouldn't be so bold. Have a look at some of these theories, they're interesting (to say the least). Best of luck.

Intuition is irrelevant, for the most part.

As an inexperienced being, you'd have no idea that a flame would hurt you. Stick your hand in it, and it burns you, you learn that it hurts you. No intuition needed.

Stick this sort of information into a computer and combine it with every other experience and scientific principle we figure out - things start to become more and more predictable the more we input in it.

 

[BlueWord]

It hasn't been proven, as we haven't completely explained the law of physics, and are unlikely to ever gain a complete understanding of the universe, but I'd say that, yes, everything that has happened and will happen is the product of very exact, unbreakable quantum laws. The universe is, in essence, I giant supercomputer, computing down to a single, inevitable future.

What we call randomness is just a product of our inability to understand or observe the factors playing into what's happening at any given moment. However, the fact that we are able to predict the most basic interactions between objects says that this must apply to all objects, so we can assume that, given proper understanding, we would be able to predict anything.

My two cents. It has some weird implications for free will, but I think I've learned to deal with it. Because we can never understand everything, anyway, it's not like it really affects us too much.

 

[Seanspeed]

One thing you'll never be disappointed by when reading an Asimov novel is his ideas. He's a great thinker and a lot of his books feature grand stories on an epic scale, but what's really good about it is that he mostly makes it very convincing. Even though his stuff was written in the fifties, his scientific ideas often manages to feel relevant when reading today, it has a timeless quality to it (still). I don't like much of his small-scale stuff though (like Caves of Steel, for example) and I honestly wouldn't be able to describe many of his characters if you asked me to, but he gets the job done even there.

Foundation is his most impressive work from what I’ve read, sweeping over decades of history on a bunch of different planets. The way he interconnects and plots the events floored me several times while reading the first few books. He can really get the mind going and he is probably my favorite sci-fi writer now that I think about it.

Here's a sample if you need to whet your appetite a bit: The Last Question

Sold!

 

[The Technomancer]

No, a computer needs not take anything into account. Its just a device that we use to store knowledge in, because human memory is faulty and inconsistent.

I'm not saying that in 5,000 years, we could predict everything, but it seems to me, that with every discovery of how things work, we make a better model for predicting the future.

Right, but if the computer can predict everything, then it has to take itself into account, because its existence effects reality. But you need a part of the computer outside itself, to observe itself and make predictions on. But then because that part effects reality, you need to predict it as well. So you need more computer, to handle predictions of the other bit. And so on, and so forth.

Also, yes, Foundation rocks. Psychohistory is one of the most fascinating concepts I've ever come across in sci-fi.

 

[harriet the spy]

What about quantum theory explains *true* randomness. How do you even define *true* randomness. What we consider random is merely a matter of thinking of something that we wouldn't have thought of before, but there's GOTTA be a reason for why we thought of it in the first place. Its a culmination of previous learnings that brings us to new ideas. A baby cant comprehend even basic physics, but as we learn things, we start to figure this stuff out. With enough understanding, is there really any limits to what we can or cant figure out?

I am sorry if this comes off as a bit offensive (I certainly don't mean to), but I am not sure what you typed makes a lot of sense. Why the random (huf, huf, i am so clever) GOTTA in there? We don't come up with the laws of the universe. We simply discover the ones we are able to make sense of.

What's so weird about true randomness? It's very well defined mathematically, and it's very possible that true random events happen. As mentioned, it's at the heart of quantum theory. Whether quantum theory is right or wrong (and true random does happen in reality or not) is independent from the fact you can very well define randomness.

And for all practical purposes, you don't need things to be actually random to exhibit random-like properties. You can formally prove that stuff which satisfies a certain number of properties will behave just like randomness as in the mathematical sense.

So if it prevents you from sleeping at night, just think of randomness and probability as a very convenient and powerful tool to study events which share a number of properties.

And that's why we studied it. Events which are not truly random behave just like random (think coin flip), so they are good enough for predicting actual systems' behavior.

 

[Seanspeed]

It hasn't been proven, as we haven't completely explained the law of physics, and are unlikely to ever gain a complete understanding of the universe, but I'd say that, yes, everything that has happened and will happen is the product of very exact, unbreakable quantum laws. The universe is, in essence, I giant supercomputer, computing down to a single, inevitable future.

What we call randomness is just a product of our inability to understand or observe the factors playing into what's happening at any given moment. However, the fact that we are able to predict the most basic interactions between objects says that this must apply to all objects, so we can assume that, given proper understanding, we would be able to predict anything.

My two cents. It has some weird implications for free will, but I think I've learned to deal with it. Because we can never understand everything, anyway, it's not like it really affects us too much.

Well what I think it affects, is our motive to keep improving our scientific understanding of this world. Being able to predict the future has very immediate implications for our livelihoods and our safety as a species. The more we know, the better we can deal with shit as it comes up.

 

[The Librarian]

One thing you'll never be disappointed by when reading an Asimov novel is his ideas. He's a great thinker and a lot of his books feature grand stories on an epic scale, but what's really good about it is that he mostly makes it very convincing. Even though his stuff was written in the fifties, his scientific ideas often manages to feel relevant when reading today, it has a timeless quality to it (still). I don't like much of his small-scale stuff though (like Caves of Steel, for example) and I honestly wouldn't be able to describe many of his characters if you asked me to, but he gets the job done even there.

Foundation is his most impressive work from what I’ve read, sweeping over decades of history on a bunch of different planets. The way he interconnects and plots the events floored me several times while reading the first few books. He can really get the mind going and he is probably my favorite sci-fi writer now that I think about it.

Here's a sample if you need to whet your appetite a bit: The Last Question

If I enjoyed the Space Odyssey series of Arthur C. Clarke, will I enjoy Foundation? I mean, from what you've said, they're not directly comparable, but is it "right down my alley"?

 

[Seanspeed]

I am sorry if this comes off as a bit offensive (I certainly don't mean to), but I am not sure what you typed makes a lot of sense. Why the random (huf, huf, i am so clever) GOTTA in there? We don't come up with the laws of the universe. We simply discover the ones we are able to make sense of.

What's so weird about true randomness? It's very well defined mathematically, and it's very possible that true random events happen. As mentioned, it's at the heart of quantum theory. Whether quantum theory is right or wrong (and true random does happen in reality or not) is independent from the fact you can very well define randomness.

And for all practical purposes, you don't need things to be actually random to exhibit random-like properties. You can formally prove that stuff which satisfies a certain number of properties will behave just like randomness as in the mathematical sense.

So if it prevents you from sleeping at night, just think of randomness and probability as a very convenient and powerful tool to study events which share a number of properties.

And that's why we studied it. Events which are not truly random behave just like random (think coin flip), so they are good enough for predicting actual systems' behavior.

I'm certainly not trying to come off as pretentious, and I'm sorry if I do. I tried to admit my ignorance of scientific understanding, and if anybody has objections based on scientific principles, please express them, as I'm merely here to learn the truth, not as an ego check to keep the idea that "I'm right".

Anyways, I'm not here to find anything comfortable so I can sleep better. I sleep like a fuckin rock as it is, so thats not a concern. Its just a genuine curiosity that I have and I thought it would make good discussion.

What I have a problem with, is that you've not *shown* that anything is truly random. You are just starting with the assumption that things are truly random, and then making conclusions based off that. Start with the assumption that things aren't random, and it completely changes everything. I dont claim to know which is right or wrong, but as far I know so far, I'm leaning towards the former.

For example, the coin flip is random to us, but surely we could measure each physical motion of the flip and know ahead of time what it would land on, right? Ideally, of course.

 

[The Technomancer]

If I enjoyed the Space Odyssey series of Arthur C. Clarke, will I enjoy Foundation? I mean, from what you've said, they're not directly comparable, but is it "right down my alley"?

Hmmm, good question. They are very different, Asimov's feel more epic in scope. Its hard to answer you actually, all I can say is that I loved both series, and I'm really picky about my sci-fi. (or books in general)

What I have a problem with, is that you've not *shown* that anything is truly random. You are just starting with the assumption that things are truly random, and then making conclusions based off that. Start with the assumption that things aren't random, and it completely changes everything. I dont claim to know which is right or wrong, but as far I know so far, I'm leaning towards the former.

Damn, I'm not sure if any of us have the physics for that. I mean, I'm pretty sure that there's something in the math that dictates true randomness, or else it just doesn't work, but I can't tell you 100%

 

[bone idle]

Does the absence of randomness imply predictability?

 

[The Technomancer]

Does the absence of randomness imply predictability?

It implies that theoretically, given an observer outside of the known universe, but with the known universe being a perfectly contained system, the behaviors of every particle in history could be predicted. Of course, that has its own huge set of issues.

 

[Gaborn]

As others have said it's all about how good your data is. There's a guy named Bruce Bueno de Mesquita that has actually developed a program that can make predictions about elections and such with about 90% accuracy for example:

Bueno de Mesquita's "predictioneering" began in 1979 when he was on a Guggenheim fellowship writing a book about the conditions that lead to war. He had designed a mathematical model to examine the choices people could make and the probability that their actions would result in either diplomacy or war. Like any model, he needed data to test it.

A good opportunity arose when the US State Department asked his opinion about an ongoing political crisis in India. The ruling coalition had become unstable and it was clear that Prime Minister Morarji Desai would be forced to stand down and a new prime minister chosen from within the coalition.

Since his PhD thesis had been on Indian politics, and data on politics didn't seem a million miles from data on war, Bueno de Mesquita agreed to help. He compiled a list of all the people who would try to influence the appointment of the next prime minister, what their preference was and how much clout they had. He fed this information into his computer programme, asked it to predict how the negotiations would play out and left it to run overnight. His own hunch was that the deputy prime minister, Jagjivan Ram, would take over. Many other experts on Indian politics thought the same thing.

The following morning, he checked the computer and found to his surprise that it was predicting a politician called Chaudhary Charan Singh would be the next prime minister. It also predicted that he would be unable to build a working coalition and so would quickly fall.

Strange result

When Bueno de Mesquita reported the result to an official at the State Department, he was taken aback. The official said no one else was saying Singh and the result was strange, at best. "When I told him I'd used a computer programme I was designing, he just laughed and urged me not to repeat that to anyone," says Bueno de Mesquita. A few weeks later, Singh became prime minister. Six months on his government collapsed. "The model had come up with the right answer and I hadn't," says Bueno de Mesquita. "Clearly there were two possibilities: the model was just lucky, or I was on to something."

Three decades later, it is clear that Bueno de Mesquita is on to something. The model has been used by Bueno de Mesquita, his students and clients (including the US government) to make thousands of predictions published in hundreds of peer-reviewed publications. These include whether or not North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong II, would dismantle his nation's nuclear arsenal, how a land-for-peace formula could work in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and which clients of a risk-management group were likely to commit fraud. According to research by the CIA, Bueno de Mesquita's model is more than 90 per cent accurate (British Journal of Political Science, vol 26, p 441). He now spends a considerable proportion of his time running a consultancy firm based in New York.

Still, the computer model's predictions are ultimately only as good as the assumptions it is given to work with.

 

[The Technomancer]

As others have said it's all about how good your data is. There's a guy named Bruce Bueno de Mesquita that has actually developed a program that can make predictions about elections and such with about 90% accuracy for example:




Still, the computer model's predictions are ultimately only as good as the assumptions it is given to work with.

.....okay. Now thats cool.

 

[bone idle]

I knew this would lead to metaphysics.

edit: looking at the above - maybe it won't lead to metaphysics after all

 

[Danne-Danger]

If I enjoyed the Space Odyssey series of Arthur C. Clarke, will I enjoy Foundation? I mean, from what you've said, they're not directly comparable, but is it "right down my alley"?

I enjoyed reading 2001 immensely, and I guess you could say that the style of both is pretty similar in that they focus more on science than characters when telling their stories. They also kinda feature similar themes with a “man behind the curtain”… Yeah, I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that you’d enjoy the Foundation series. Though granted I haven’t finished either one so I don’t know where they end up, but comparing the first books I’d say it’s down your alley, yes.

 

[The Technomancer]

I knew this would lead to metaphysics.

edit: looking at the above - maybe it won't lead to metaphysics after all

Its the kind of thing that you have to have a sense of scale about. We probably could develop computers to predict human behavior with, oh say, 99.9999999% accuracy, but maybe every few decades, maybe every few milennea, there would be small aberrations. Maybe those aberrations would get ignored, maybe they'd have chaos theory style domino effects. We can get damn close, but as we currently understand it, you can't predict perfectly.

 

[The Librarian]

I enjoyed reading 2001 immensely, and I guess you could say that the style of both is pretty similar in that they focus more on science than characters when telling their stories. They also kinda feature similar themes with a “man behind the curtain”… Yeah, I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that you’d enjoy the Foundation series. Though granted I haven’t finished either one so I don’t know where they end up, but comparing the first books I’d say it’s down your alley, yes.

The only good books (and they're really good books) in the Space Odyssey series is 2001 and 2010. The other two are pretty much throwaway.

I guess I'll be picking up Foundation as soon as I'm through with the college book I have to read.

 

[bone idle]

As an aside, it's interesting to note that the predictability of the financial markets is analysed by the most powerful computers/people we have. Yet even this relatively simple system is well beyond our ability to forecast.

 

[Seanspeed]

As an aside, it's interesting to note that the predictability of the financial markets is analysed by the most powerful computers/people we have. Yet even this relatively simple system is well beyond our ability to forecast.

But thats expected. I still think we are very early in our understanding of the world. Just look at how big the leaps are from 100 years ago to now. Imagine another 1,000 years of human development....

Does the absence of randomness imply predictability?

Thats simply another way of restating my OP. For me, yes, it implies that explicitly.

 

[zero margin]

Hey sean you trying to guide this thread? If so it seems the antithesis of what it's all about.