Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zyr
Sure, my assumption is wrong if your assumption is right, I agree with that...
(In case you can't tell, I'm trying to get you to back up your assumption.)
|
It's not really an assumption so much of a statement of the observation of various physical experiments. I'm not talking about Heisenberg Uncertainty, since that would not apply to instantaneous omniscience.
But even if you had perfect knowledge of a single instant in time, you would not be able to predict all that followed infallibly, simply because there are processes that are by their nature probabilistic. It might take a while before the accumulated error actually reached a visible/practical scale, but technical difference (I.E. which of two radioactive atoms decayed in one half life, where in a diffusion pattern a given photon ended up, etc.) would occur almost immediately... simply because these procese are not mechanical, their outcomes cannot be predicted from their starting conditions.
I suppose the unspoken assumption would be that the way we look at things is correct. There might be some other way to describe the universe that would make such events predictable with perfect knowledge of the initial conditions. But since the computer I'm using depends on those quantum physicist guys being right...