From: Tony Williams 

Geo wrote:
> "Tony Williams"  wrote in message
> news:43935a77$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>I think you missed the point. While something may be predictable
>>according to a set of rules that doesn't help much if the rules and data
>>are so numerous that prediction runs slower than actual events. That's
>>the problem with systems like the weather; once you have enough data the
>>complexity of the calculations means that even theoretically it's not
>>possible to predict in advance of events.
>
>
> You sound like those pre-computer guys who used to claim we wouldn't be able
> to predict stuff that is regularly predicted today.

Be nice. There's a difference between not possible yet and not possible in
theory. Course the theory might be wrong ... and IMO it probably is. Arthur
C. Clarke's warning not to believe scientists when they say something's
impossible springs to mind.

> but my point is that the lack of computing power doesn't mean future events
> are not certain, that the outcome has not already been decided. It just
> means we aren't smart enough to know what that outcome will be.

It means that it's not possible to be smart enough; otherwise I agree.

--
Tony

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5