attached mail follows:
George Murphy wrote:
>
> Massie wrote:
> >
> > George Murphy wrote:
> > >
> > > Massie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Joel Cannon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu 13 Jan 2000 Massie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >So you admit the lack of predictive power meaning the ability
> > > > > >to forcast the next big organism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Physics is unable to predict the next big meteor, the next big
> > > > > earthquake, or the next big storm except in terms of
> > > > > probabilities so the standard may be flawed. (or maybe it is physics
> > > > > that is flawed). ........................
> > > >
> > > > Give me the boundary conditions and I will forecast the hit time down to
> > > > the nanosecond. Physics works and it predicts. .......................
> > > & predict it incorrectly because of the sensitivity of such complex
> > > phenomena to initial conditions. Ever hear of the butterfly effect?
> > > George
> > >
> > > George L. Murphy
> > > gmurphy@raex.com
> > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > ************
> >
> > Sure enough. Ever hear about calculations of meteorites? These can be
> > quite accurate. Yes, when there are two many variables in choatic
> > systems and calculations are not possible. I did not say that all
> > physical systems are calculable and this does not mean that they are not
> > calculable but not by computers we have access to in the physical realm
> > and it does not mean that physical laws do not have predictive power.
> >
> > I am asking for predictive power from evolutionary theory and I will
> > give them all the initial conditions they want.
> >
> > Whats the point?
>
> Predicting a meteorite hit "to the nanosecond" would require calculating
> atmospheric drag to an unrealistic precision, & "the next big storm" is precisely
> the kind of thing the butterfly effect says you can't predict precisely.
> Eventually you'd have to give initial conditions below the level the uncertainty
> principle allows. A fortiori we can't make such predictions in practice. The point is
> that you're wrong.
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
George
You seem to have lost the point in the details and your complaint about
nanosecond is surperfolous.
Have a nice day.
Bert M
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 13 2000 - 23:05:13 EST