Is it possible to predict the future? - A Thought experiment

You know what I mean. With rapidly advancing scientific capacities in the United States we look to biology, chemistry, and physics to predict how a system will work. We use sociology and psychology to say how people raised in certain circumstances will develop, and what they will become. Though these are two different concepts of determinism we assume that the scientific informs the societal.

Specifically I am going to look at physical determinism which is more concerned with the hard sciences.

I'm not going to try to convince you of the existence of a soul, or of any god, or develop an argument for any particular source of free will, but I wanted to consider a possibility.

Consider:

Premises

1)The universe is governed by the laws of science.

2)These laws effect all aspects of the universe.

3)There is nothing but the physical universe.

4)Humans are a part of the universe, effected by the laws of science.

Conclusions

5)Therefore, Humans are not effected by anything else, because there is nothing else.

6)Therefore, the actions of all things from the formation of planets to the behavior of humans are determined by the laws of science.

Premise

7)These laws are ascertainable, able to be tested, and can be written down.

Conclusion

8)Therefore, if we knew all the laws we could predict every aspect of human behavior.

Let us assume that humanity don't somehow write itself out of the story of the universe in the near future.

And let us further assume that we will discover all the laws of the universe, since we believe that it is theoretically possible.

If we did this, we could compile all the data into a super computer that would then be able to predict every aspect of life.

For efficiency, lets also assume the computer must tell you the truth as it understands it.

So we have a giant, theoretical supercomputer and it can predict every event, action, and even thought that occurs in the entire length and breadth of the Universe.

But here is the question. If you were then brought into a room with the supercomputer, what would you do? Let's say that in the room was a plate with an apple and an orange. You ask the computer to predict what you will do next and it replied that you will eat the apple. Do you eat the apple? Or the orange? Or do you throw one of them at its monitor?

In this thought experiment there seems no reason to do what it said you would do. And if you don't act as it said you would, you prove that it could not predict the future by using all the laws of science.

Which of our considerations is incorrect?

I don't think anyone doubts 1, because we live in a society where we see the value of science. And if there are scientific facts and laws which are true they objects as the law suggests. So 2 is fine as well. I also think it would be silly to argue against 4. Obviously we are affected by the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, and all the others.

But from there it becomes more uncertain. I would like to jump ahead, and point out that I think number 7 is also quite fine. I know some people that disagree. They argue that a the universe can not hold a computer that contains all the scientific laws of the universe. Only a system outside of the universe could.

I could see arguing that the human mind would be limited in its capacity to hold all the relevant scientific knowledge necessary at once, (unless there is a collection of simple underlying and unifying principles). However, a large collection of individuals working over many generations with many computer terminals would be able to collect, organize, and synthesize the data into a computer that is beyond our understanding. 

But I don't see that a computer (theoretical, but you should see all the theoretical extravagances required for the greatest philosophical thoughts), even one beyond our comprehension in its components. Think Deep Thought, but of course, much better. If you would argue that it is not the fault of computers, but that the laws of science could just not be contained in the universe, then it seems there is a problem. I think that if you are arguing that they are unknowable or uncomputable than you are embracing a form of mysticism, and therefore you should take a look at #1,2,3, and 4. If there is nothing but the physical realm and everything is governed by the laws of physics (and all the rest), then there really seems no reason that you can't know everything.

Ok so, 1,2, 4, and 7 seem fine. 5,6, and 8 are based off of the premises so that leaves only 3. If you believe that the computer:

A) Can know all the laws of the universe.

B) Must tell you the truth as far as it understands it.

And

C) Once told what you will do, you can do something else.

Then

D) There must be something the computer doesn't know.

Once we agree on that then 5,6, and 8 no longer stand.  Or perhaps its more correct, from the way we have worked at it, 3 no longer stands because the computer can not predict our behavior.   If behavior can not be predicted people must be affected by something else and this something else must be non-physical.

And that is it as far as I can see, but I'm curious to see what you think. See you on Friday.