Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sohaibshaheen t1_j0bdhud wrote

Reply to comment by mbardeen in Predictive Artificial Intelligence by Final-Cause9540

Very well put. Events are based on human emotions and human emotions are unpredictable. Stock market predictions fail all the time because they are often derived by sentiment, not governed by logic.

−1

umkaramazov t1_j0cy4fu wrote

Human emotions are not unpredictable. I guess it's just too many variables to be able to model the future.

2

sohaibshaheen t1_j0fc7a1 wrote

To further clarify my point about humans, it has been proven in the past that one person’s actions have changed entire course of history e.g. Hitler and since we know that people are unique, his actions couldnt have been predicted by any model. Even if we modelled his entire life, chaos theory states that a change in fraction of a variable would have changed entire output i.e. if he did or didn’t meet one person in his life, his entire view about world and jews could have never developed.

2

sohaibshaheen t1_j0fbm61 wrote

How is that different from unpredictability? It has been proven that every human is unique in their thoughts, behaviour and reaction to events. So it’s impossible to map all the emotions and hence it’s impossible to create any model that can predict that.

1

__ingeniare__ t1_j0e08zw wrote

The only truly unpredictable events are those in quantum mechanics, everything else is just a lack of data and processing power to do the inference. And we're not even sure about the quantum events.

1

sohaibshaheen t1_j0fbaw1 wrote

I am sorry but I disagree. Covid clearly showed that human emotions are entirely unpredictable and there are times when there will never be historical data to make an inference i.e. once again what happened in covid ( in reference to stock market, vaccination backlash, transport, fuel, consumer behaviour ) can not be predicted using historical data.

0

sohaibshaheen t1_j0fbhiw wrote

You can easily call it lack of data but then where do we draw the line? Every couple of years an event will occur which will have no historical counterpart and we will keep pinning it on lack of data. In my opinion its simply impossible, party due to chaos theory as well.

0

__ingeniare__ t1_j0ftkkp wrote

I'm not talking about practically predictable using current tech, I'm talking about theoretically predictable. Everything that happens can be theoretically derived from the laws of the universe. The laws are deterministic (perhaps except for quantum mechanics). Therefore, everything is deterministic and can be predicted. Human emotions are only unpredictable because we don't have an accurate model of the brain of the human we're trying to predict. If we did, and had a computer powerful enough to simulate it, their behaviour could be predicted. Hence - lack of data (model of the brain) and processing power (computer to simulate it).

Also chaos theory has nothing to do with the possibility of predictions, only the difficulty. It states that a chaotic system yields very different results for very small differences in initial conditions, not that there is some magic randomness that is impossible to account for in the system. Given the complete initial conditions, you can compute it completely deterministically. Therefore, if you get it wrong because of a chaotic system, it was lack of data (the incorrect initial conditions).

2

sohaibshaheen t1_j0fu2uj wrote

They are called theoretical for a reason and reason is that its not proven yet hence has no basis in reality unless it can be proven with experiment.

I believe there is absolute randomness in universe, contrary to popular believe that everything is predictable but i do respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing.

1

__ingeniare__ t1_j0fw5pq wrote

Not exactly, in this case it's theoretical because it is not of practical concern, despite being true. A theory in science is the highest possible status an idea can achieve, nothing can be conclusively proven.

Quantum randomness is a pretty popular idea, but everything else is known to be deterministic. Whether the universe as a whole is random or deterministic depends on if quantum randomness is actually true randomness, maybe we'll have an answer in the coming decades.

3

sohaibshaheen t1_j0fwvpp wrote

As far as I know, determinism is a philosophical idea not an established fact and theory is what it is, just a theory. Just because it isn’t possible to prove it doesnt mean that we will blindly trust it. Theories exist on both side of arguments, even free will to some extent negates the idea of determinism completely.

1

CubeFlipper t1_j0gwhvm wrote

>even free will to some extent negates the idea of determinism completely.

This is a conclusion drawn backwards, I think. If determinism is the evidence we have, then it is determinism that negates the idea of free will. Free will is an illusion.

2

sohaibshaheen t1_j0h16dg wrote

Like i said its a philosophical debate not an absolute one. Idea of free will has not been rejected and wont ever be in my opinion. You could be right or you could be wrong, we will never know as long as people on both sides of the argument live :)

1

sohaibshaheen t1_j0fwxvm wrote

I have learnt a-lot from this debate though so thanks a-lot for your time and valuable feedback.

1

__ingeniare__ t1_j0g3rav wrote

Determinism can be deduced from the laws of physics - if the laws are deterministic, then the universe is, by necessity, also deterministic. But there are many strange things we don't yet know about, such as consciousness and free will. So, no one really knows. Good talk!

3