Natural phenomena can be explained and predicted using this information.

If you think that predictability is some kind of support for determinism, what do you think predictive impossibility suggests?

Solomonoff has proved that all ideal predictions are uncomputable, even in principle and regardless of whether the model is deterministic or probabilistic. That is to say, the smallest change in the simplest system is irretrievably unpredictable. If you think that predictability is some kind of support for determinism, what do you think predictive impossibility suggests?

If you think that predictability is some kind of support for determinism, what do you think predictive impossibility suggests?

I would ask you to clarify....Do you mean predicting that X is impossible or do you mean X is impossible to predict?

obviously it is my opinion that science has simply not progressed enough to make the prediction about X......eventually it will predictable as well

It has been proved that such predictions are impossible, even in principle.

The universal gravitational constant is a value that can only be established empirically, therefore it is impossible that there could be any reason for that value to be what it is.

well I'm sure nothing has ever been disproved before.

How do you suggest they were able to "prove" such a thing?

Even still, human ability to be able to predict something doesn't mean that something is NOT acting by law, cause, and reason

Beyond that I don't know enough about the specifics to answer intelligently. Fil. Albuquerque knows much more about this type of thing than me....perhaps he will interject his opinion on the matter.

I do think Schrodinger's cat analogy points out some of the absurdity about "non predictability"

It has been proved that such predictions are impossible, even in principle.

Which predictions do you think are impossible, and what does that mean for a prediction to be impossible? All a prediction is is a forecasting; most people who use the term acknowledge that humans are fallible, and so admit that they are not absolutely certain. But that doesn't mean we can't have good reason to believe something will be true that we predict, or that our predictions are never true - they sometimes are. I predict that tomorrow water will come from my showerhead when I turn my shower on, and I have good reason for believing this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ughaibu
It has been proved that such predictions are impossible, even in principle.






so what has this got to with the thread ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetherin
Which predictions do you think are impossible, and what does that mean for a prediction to be impossible? All a prediction is is a forecasting; most people who use the term acknowledge that humans are fallible, and so admit that they are not absolutely certain. But that doesn't mean we can't have good reason to believe something will be true that we predict, or that our predictions are never true - they sometimes are. I predict that tomorrow water will come from my showerhead when I turn my shower on, and I have good reason for believing this.

so what has this got to with the thread ?

well what has this got to with this thread ?

How do you suggest they were able to "prove" such a thing?

Even still, human ability to be able to predict something doesn't mean that something is NOT acting by law, cause, and reason

Many things can only be established empirically. For instance, that this chair is in my room. Is it impossible that this chair is actually in my room since I can only determine it is in my room empirically?

Which predictions do you think are impossible, and what does that mean for a prediction to be impossible?

Now that is exactly what scientists say, except that they use the term "cause" rather than "regularity". Apparently, you are now offering a new notation.'Whenever scientists use the term, "cause" use the term, "regularity"'. What a let down!

"now watch as I chop this mans head off and prove how regularly he tends to die, except, of course, on those rarest of rare occasions, when he does not."

The claim is that the ability to predict suggests the reality of determinism, as exact predictions are impossible, there is no such support from the predictability of this world.

Why is that a let down? I don't mean to argue that there is no difference. I mean to argue that scientists are wrong when they claim that causes exist in addition to regularities..

In the 1968 report he shows that Algorithmic Probability is complete; that is, if there is any describable regularity in a body of data, Algorithmic Probability will eventually discover that regularity, requiring a relatively small sample of that data. Algorithmic Probability is the only probability system know to be complete in this way. As a necessary consequence of its completeness it is incomputable. The incomputability is because some algorithms - a subset of those that are partially recursive - can never be evaluated fully because it would take too long. But these programs will at least be recognized as possible solutions. On the other hand, any computable system is incomplete. There will always be descriptions outside that system's search space which will never be acknowledged or considered, even in an infinite amount of time. Computable prediction models hide this fact by ignoring such algorithms.

Could you say, again, how you distinguish between accidental regularities and non-accidental regularities?

...of course a smaller program cannot compute Being...
...Being is only computable by itself...
...meaning describable by itself...(becoming is precisely that)

Phenomena as the optimal description of Being, the Noumena, are necessary proof of Determinism...
...how else would the wave function collapse to 1 ?
...if such was not the case, becoming would not become...

Ray Solomonoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Being against non-Being must, by definition, not be incomplete !!!

Consequences:

Zero is a function, not a set...