[nemaar]

I believe you are mixing things up. A chaotic system IS deterministic, it is just really hard to predict what it will do. The fact that we (or anyone) cannot predict what will happen in our world says nothing about it being deterministic. If you are talking about practical determinism only then yes, you are most likely correct and we'll never be able to predict the future. But it is misleading and incorrect to say that the world is not deterministic just because we cannot predict its behavior.

[Erlich_Bachman]

I just outlined the argument where I show exactly how not being able to predict it means in effect that it is not deterministic. Can you provide some logic against that argument? (So far you just said you don't agree.)

Also please note, and I repeat myself that I argue there is a great difference between "really hard to predict" and "physically impossible to predict for any being, based on our own notion of the universe".

[nemaar]

I am not sure what kind of argument you would like, you are trying to redefine the word 'deterministic'. My argument is that it does not work like that. Just because we cannot predict something does NOT mean that it is not deterministic. Even if it is physically impossible to predict it for anyone it still can be deterministic. That's just how this concept works. In practice this means nothing, so I think we can end this debate because you are surely not convincing me and I doubt I can convince you:)

[Erlich_Bachman]

I am interested, what is the definition of determinism that you are using?

If it "means nothing in practice", and can be true/not true regardless of whether it is possible (even in theory) to test it - then I assume that it is unrelated to science and you are using it in a philosophical sense?

[naasking]

> Can you provide some logic against that argument?

Turing machines are deterministic. Enumerating all Turing machines is deterministic. Whether any given Turing machine will terminate is unpredictable (the Halting problem).

Unpredictability does not entail nondeterminism, although distinguishing the two is not necessarily always possible.

[Erlich_Bachman]

But turing machines are theoretical concepts. The physical processors we have - are only physical approximations of a theoretical concepts - and if the argument was made for the view of "determinism" that I outlined - it would be about the physical processor, the physical world itself.

Paraphrasing, the theoretical image of an atom, as well as the set of atoms and other particles - is perfectly deterministic. But the chaos theory talks about the real world, not the theoretical framework.

[naasking]

The concept of determinism has no physical limits. Don't try to redefine standard terminology.

[Erlich_Bachman]

The concept has no limits, true. The physical world does.