> > You probably can't think of a reasonable way to calculate the temperature
> > of a black hole either, but that doesn't mean other people can't do it.
> > Do you mean to claim more than that *you* *now* haven't thought of
> > something you like?
>Good point, but afaik there is no consistent theory of human actions,
>either, and we're a good deal more predictable than an SI. Ergodic
>systems are intrinsically unpredictable, and you can't prove the SI is
>not occasionally ergodic.
Of course there are consistent theories of human actions. Consistency is a pretty easy constraint to meet. And of course ergodic systems can be predicted; they just can't be predicted perfectly accurately. Take just about any theory and add in a noise component, and that theory is consistent with most any set of observations. It just may not assign as high a likelihood to those observations than a better theory.
>I could reason evolutionary, but I have no idea whether this still applies
>to the SI. Areas of human enterprise is certainly unapplicable.
What areas of human enterprise can't evolutionary concepts apply to? And even if *you* have no idea whether they apply, how do you know others of us don't have a better idea?
firstname.lastname@example.org http://hanson.berkeley.edu/ RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884 140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-2627