I read: “What if you had enough information … ….If these premises are agreed upon” I said little because we don’t, and I didn’t.

I read:
“What if you had enough information …
….If these premises are agreed upon”I said little because we don’t, and I didn’t.— Four common criticisms of Laplace’s Demon are:Thermodynamic irreversibility
Quantum mechanical irreversibility
Chaos theory
Cantor diagonalization

For me, Chaos theory has the most pull and why I didn’t go through a hypothetical that I don’t see as scientific or reasonable.


Yes, as Wikipedia reflects common knowledge, being crowd-edited, it was a valid source of “common” imo.


They *could* be reconciled *in simple cases*.. An example is the Arnold’s cat map

“Sample mapping on a picture of 150×150 pixels. The numbers shows the iteration step. After 300 iterations arriving at the original image”

So, it’s a torus wrapped around to itself. Confusing, unintuitive, but doable.




Consider the n-body problem. It’s a PSPACE-hard problem.
I don’t think it’s unsolvable but our current computational methods simply aren’t going to work and quantum computing will blur the problem rather than solving it – adequate pragmatically up to a point (or down to in a decimal precision sense) but is it enough to justify your scenario and conclusion? No, as it will lack the necessary precision.

With universal quantum computing, you can get to “nearest neighbor” model for precision but will that be enough to justify your what if and resulting conclusion?


The error-correcting of the qubits won’t quite reach the point of analog noise but it will be close.


You need complete accuracy *and* precision for this to work and at present and for the foreseeable, we can’t. Maybe we can get a “High accuracy, Low precision” and it would be enough for some to declare:


but IS that enough?




  • chrz (60.64 KB

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 − = three

Leave a Reply