Is it possible to perfectly describe and thus predict any changing

>>9043241
yes and yes

Simply describing a system is not sufficient to predict it, so the answer is no.

>>9043241
>describe and predict
describe =/=> predict in all cases, brainlet
>>9043249
this

>>9043251
>>9043249
Why wouldn't a perfect description be able to predict it perfectly?

>>9043251
describe and thus*

>>9043252

Depends wildly on what you mean by describe or predict. For example, you can describe the program of a turing machine and its' initial state but you cannot, in general, predict whether it halts.

>>9043241
Not really. If you restrict time to a finite interval then a polynomial can approximate it as much as you like by the Weierstrass Approximation Theorem (I'm assuming stock prices/whatever you're modeling is a continuous real function).

>>9043241
Not in the general case.

Consider for example the lottery. If the system is rigged to always, under any circumstance and no matter what pick a number you didn't choose, then there is no way to predict what the outcome is.

godel incompleteness
heisenbergs uncertainty principle
second law of thermodynamics

>>9043859
>If the system is rigged to always, under any circumstance and no matter what pick a number you didn't choose, then there is no way to predict what the outcome is.
So what happens if you buy 700 million tickets? (assuming there's 700 million possible choices of numbers)

>>9043918
What I meant was the exact result.

>>9043940
its too late nigga, my noggin's already joggin

>>9043952
The case where you only have one guess out of 3 or more possibilities is sufficient as a counter example.

>>9043959
>you only have one guess
it's the lottery, you have more guesses if you have more money
1/k chance of winning, make k guesses, you're supposed to win
but the system is fucking against you so it's always going to be a string you didn't guess
but you guessed all possible strings
so the lottery machine must have output an impossible string
oh SHIT

>>9043985
What you said is a straw man.

Remember folks, time and space are not to be interchanged otherwise you get questions like these.

It may be possible to describe an equation or algorithm that fits perfectly for the stock market, but you may not be able to solve it because some of the variables are recursive and change in real time.

e.g. You use your fancy calculation to determine the predicted value of a stock in 5 days. However stock prices are based on predicted value as much as real value. If people believe a stock will go up in price, people will BUY and the price will go up. Simply calculating the price of a stock with this algorithm will change it.

>>9044283
It is possible there is a reason people act they way they do and one could use that... random chance, the distribution of prime numbers... whatever nonsense it is that people believe in.

>>9044283
Your idea is simply because you aren't far enough from the issue. Clearly, a higher algorithm would account for the people's tendency to buy when the lower algorithm predicted growth, so you can extrapolate and clearly see that you merely don't have enough information. Your algorithm may be good, but it's a human approximation. There is an algorithm that can perfectly predict the stock market, since clearly the stock market has behavior which must have determining factors. Just because you don't and can't have enough information to know the algorithm since you are included as an influential factor doesn't mean an algorithm can't exist. The universe is deterministic, we'll just never be able to make any use of that.

>>9043241
Well the thing about systems is they are purley abstract models. So while it is possible to predict the behavoir of a system it is impossible to predict the behavior of what the system is synthesized from. This is because the laws of causality don't apply at that level of complexity where properties are products of complex realization and downward causality from the behavoir of living agents.