Logic of chance

[DD_8630]

2) Hawking seems to be not your cup of tea because it's the second time you reject his theories.

You misunderstand: Hawking himself stated that he believed the bet lost. He now believes that information is radiated in a garbled form, and I agree with him.

Great scientist have oftenly had fierce opponents who either fought about priority of a certain theory or denied the opponents theory alltogether.
It is known that Suskind a former co-worker of Hawking denied the "Hawking paradox" by maintaining that the information of the black hole is "smeared" on the space/time horizon.
It is true that after Hawking recognized his paradox as untrue and proposed the parallel universe solution many physicist opposed this idea.
Nevertheless the idea is still under research by famous physicist and as counterintuitive as it may be it is by no means considered as science fiction as you present it.

On the contrary, it is: even the 'many-worlds' hypothesis is a controversial interpretation of quantum mechanics. The consensus among scientists is that there is probably only one universe (ours), and that there certainly is no evidence thus far of alternate ones.

Now let's visit first the Hell of Sociology.
If we take a just random example of behaviour of masses we can see how predictable social laws lead often to total randomly reactions of humans.So just begun revolutions.It's this duality of determinism and indeterminism of which I'm speaking.

Let's take the road to Economy Hell.
The actual world wide economic crisis speaks more than any theory how famous and hailed economists,like for instance this genius Allan Greenspan who seemed to know the future of the economy as 1+1=2
failed miserably in their predictions and one can seek for millions of causes and not find exactly why the Economy has plunged in such a big degree of randomness.
Again the same duality of prediction and chance.

Now Let's embark to Meteorology Hell.
There was a time when Meteorologists thought that by means of ultra computers they will be able to predict weather exactly for a span of a day.
It has proven as a dream never to come true because of the randomness of climatic factors.
I have no skill whatsoever in Meteorology but I dare to come up with this thought that the temperature on the face of the earth can not theoretically ever be exactly predicted, due to the second principle of termodinamics.
The dual aspect of determinism and indeterminism is felt dayly by us when we look to the wheather forecast then swear the Meteorologists as being lyers or idiots.

You are confusing approximation with indeterminism. Economic and meteorological forecasts are wrong not because the universe is fundamentally indeterminate, but rather because the economy and the weather are chaotic systems: tiny variation in the initial conditions lead to completely different outcomes. A particular breeze being slightly faster than measured, or a particular market sector being infinitesimally more saturated than polls determine, will yield completely different results.

It boils down to information. The weatherman is wrong because his calculations were a) derived using simplifying approximations and assumptions, and b) given inaccurate information. If a completely general and un-approximated solution could be derived, and if it were given the complete set of relevant data, it would be able to predict the climate at any time in the future.

Determinism, then, is the philosophical position that the universe is (in principle) predictable: given enough information about the present, one can predict the future with 100% accuracy.
Indeterminism is the position that the universe cannot be so modelled.

Quantum mechanically, the universe is indeterminate: there are truly random events in the universe that cannot be predicted, so neither can the universe at large be predicted. It can be approximated to certain degrees of accuracy, but it can never be predicted with 100% accuracy.


I hope that clears up the misconception you seem to have about determinism and indeterminism: first, they are mutually incompatible (both can't be true), and second, the universe is indeterminate (quantum mechanically speaking.).