https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/11/charliue-brooker-computer-predicts-future
They have built a computer than has been successful at predicting future events, like the Arab Spring. Essentially they just feed it with any information they can and let it process the information to try and predict the future.
Thinking about this, if one were to know everything, there is nothing you should not be able to predict.
Of course, a computer, like ourselves, are not all knowing and never will be, so there will always be room for error. However, the more information that is gathered, the less error there will be.
10 Mar 17
Originally posted by whodeyTake it to the 'Predicting the future' forum spanky.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/11/charliue-brooker-computer-predicts-future
They have built a computer than has been successful at predicting future events, like the Arab Spring. Essentially they just feed it with any information they can and let it process the information to try and predict the future.
Thinking about this, if one w ...[text shortened]... e room for error. However, the more information that is gathered, the less error there will be.
😲
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeNo, this belong here.
Take it to the 'Predicting the future' forum spanky.
😲
I posit that the more information you have about things, the more you are able to predict the future.
Naturally, no one, or no computer, will be all knowing like God is, so there will always be room for error. However, the more information a computer has, the better able it is to predict the future.
I further posit that this is how God knows the future. He knows all and sees where things will lead based upon the calculations of all knowledge and information.
Artificial intelligence is in its infancy stages, but I predict it will explode here shortly. Currently, the government and corporations are collecting vast amounts of information on you and keeping record of it. This will be used to predict the future.
Originally posted by whodeyReality is against you. Science has not yet determined whether or not the universe is deterministic, but it has more or less ruled out us every being able to predict everything.
I posit that the more information you have about things, the more you are able to predict the future.
10 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadReally? So there are things in science that do not have a cause?
Reality is against you. Science has not yet determined whether or not the universe is deterministic, but it has more or less ruled out us every being able to predict everything.
Do tell.
10 Mar 17
Originally posted by whodeyThere are things in science that are not known to have a cause. Most things actually. It would appear that all quantum events are either random or as good as random, ie we cannot predict them.
Really? So there are things in science that do not have a cause?
Do tell.
10 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut we have been able to predict trends in the past.
There are things in science that are not known to have a cause. Most things actually. It would appear that all quantum events are either random or as good as random, ie we cannot predict them.
As opposed to whodey, despite more info in the future, I think it will be more difficult to predict.
10 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm slightly confused here.
We can predict a lot of things. The sun will rise tomorrow for example. But no amount of information will tell you the exact weather a few weeks from now (although trends do exist).
Are we predicting 'everything' or natural events (weather etc. ) or peoples behaviours?
I was thinking in terms of people,groups, politics, (peoples) movements,etc.
11 Mar 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelSocial media has become a good way to predict behavior of the masses.
I'm slightly confused here.
Are we predicting 'everything' or natural events (weather etc. ) or peoples behaviours?
I was thinking in terms of people,groups, politics, (peoples) movements,etc.
For example had you polled the social media instead of the antiquated polling method to see who would win the election, Trump would have been shown to be the winner.
11 Mar 17
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYeah , so did Michael Moore.
Social media has become a good way to predict behavior of the masses.
For example had you polled the social media instead of the antiquated polling method to see who would win the election, Trump would have been shown to be the winner.
So you're not talking about weather,right?
edit: Twhitehead, you see that. You failed again to get into the spirit of the thread instead pointing out that the "sun will rise tomorrow" . Are you AI?
11 Mar 17
Originally posted by whodeyOr so claims someone who managed to 'predict' it after the election was over and the result was known. Postdiction is always easier than prediction.
Social media has become a good way to predict behavior of the masses.
For example had you polled the social media instead of the antiquated polling method to see who would win the election, Trump would have been shown to be the winner.
11 Mar 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelThere is not a lot of difference. Some behaviors are easily predictable, some are impossible to predict. It would be impossible to predict who the president of the US will be in 2025, but one might be able to give a reasonable estimate as to which party they will belong to.
Are we predicting 'everything' or natural events (weather etc. ) or peoples behaviours?
I was thinking in terms of people,groups, politics, (peoples) movements,etc.
11 Mar 17
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe it will predict when Jesus will finally return to earth 😲
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/11/charliue-brooker-computer-predicts-future
They have built a computer than has been successful at predicting future events, like the Arab Spring. Essentially they just feed it with any information they can and let it process the information to try and predict the future.
Thinking about this, if one w ...[text shortened]... e room for error. However, the more information that is gathered, the less error there will be.
Wouldn't that be swell?