[trevyn]

And yet, we can predict certain things with surprising accuracy.

The fallacy is thinking that we must predict an exact state vs. a probabilistic prediction of an information-theoretically meaningful set of states. Reality is metastable, so there are certain attractor states, even if randomness is injected throughout.

I have no idea the exact second my plane is going to land tomorrow, but I’m reasonably confident it will land, and I’m very confident that the United States will still exist tomorrow.

I have no idea if the United States will exist in 10,000 years, but I’m pretty sure Earth will still be a rock orbiting the Sun at that time.

And so on.

[Erlich_Bachman]

I'm sorry if I didn't understand you reply, - I think you wrote is very obvious and I though i adressed that with the simple neutonian system reference.

Using your analogy, whether United States will exist in 10000 years might actually be undetermined. Not just unknown, unpredicted, but undetermined in the chaos theory- sense. Not only you don't know it - the universe itself does not know it. And the universe is built in such a way that it is impossible to know. Not just "very hard and requires a lot of computation". Impossible, because we can show that the computations you would need would require a computer bigger than the universe itself.

Then there is of course an extra note required here is that there is no way for me as a human to know if the question about United States actually is universally undetermined - or just unpredicted; if there is some entity that can predict that. But the chaos theory says that many aspects of the system, and the system as a whole is undetermined. (While having exceptions where simple things like your plane landing can be predicted with some accuracy, yes.)