Scientific Proof of the Existence of the Soul and God

[Alien]

...
I am a physicist and I perfectly understand quantum mechanics.
...
Marco

Dear Marco,

my point about unpredictability of the future does not necessarily apply only to quantum mechanics.

I am talking about macroscopical events like, for example, the chaotic motion. It has been demonstrated that even knowing all initial conditions of the state variables of a given system does not allow us to mathematically predict the future. A good example is weather forecast, which is unreliable after a couple of days.

Even your example about my computer is indeterministic. On one side, it is true, there are instructions written in software and these instructions are deterministic, but the hardware might fail, and you never know in advance what will fail and how. But, even more, you are totally unable to predict what I am going to write in my post, as I am totally unable to imagine what could be your reply.

Even mathematical and deterministic equations might be chaotic and present therefore a high degree of unpredictability.

The future is only partly predictable, and only on a statistical basis. The universe is definitely indeterministic.

[Dan]

The weather is the worst example. The reason the weather can't be predicted is because EVERY action that effects the atmosphere and the water cycle has to be accounted for. This is a list of variables numbering in the billions and so the calculations needed to predict the weather are both impossible and ludicrous.

The weather <i>could</i> be predicted, however it is impossible to know ever variable.

Classical physics says that if you know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, you could predict events arbitrarily into the future and determine events arbitrarily into the past. However quantum physics debunks this thinking because the uncertainty principle denies us the ability to ever know both the velocity and position of a particle at the same time. Furthermore a particle's position can only be determined as a <i>probability</i> making it impossible to know where a particle is going in the first place!

The reason these concepts don't appear in our macroscopic vision of the world is because when particles interact with other particles, their wave function collapses and their position becomes absolute, not just a probability. This phenomenon is called decoherence and it's the reason why quantum physics doesn't make our world a confusing place (at least to us).

[marcobiagini]

Dear Marco,

my point about unpredictability of the future does not necessarily apply only to quantum mechanics.

I am talking about macroscopical events like, for example, the chaotic motion. It has been demonstrated that even knowing all initial conditions of the state variables of a given system does not allow us to mathematically predict the future. A good example is weather forecast, which is unreliable after a couple of days..

Simply wrong. According to classical physics, the exact knowledge of all initial conditions is sufficient to predict the evolution of the system. The reason why we cannot predict the whether is that we do not know all initial conditions. You have a wrong concept of chaotic system. A chaotic system is defined as a system where a tiny change in the initial condition causes huge changes in the future states. The incapacity to predict the evolution of a chaotic system is then simply due to our incapacity to know perfectly all initial conditions.

Even your example about my computer is indeterministic. On one side, it is true, there are instructions written in software and these instructions are deterministic, but the hardware might fail, and you never know in advance what will fail and how. But, even more, you are totally unable to predict what I am going to write in my post, as I am totally unable to imagine what could be your reply.

This is because our replies are not simply the consequences of physical processes, but they are originated in our psyches; as I have explained, our psyche is a trascendent unphysical element, present in each man.

marco

[Alien]

Here it becomes interesting. I try to write short statements.

Classical physical laws are deterministic. Agreed.

If you plot state variables for a classical physical law that describes a deterministic system, you can find regular deterministic patterns. If you plot "F = ma" and its integrals, you generally find analytical curves.

A chaotic system is a system that shows a chaotic behaviour when you plot its state variables. You don't find regular deterministic curves, but so-called chaotic curves or strange attractors or whatever unpredictable.

Then, it would seem that deterministic systems and chaotic systems are two totally separated worlds, as I understand you are saying, but I don't think so.

This for two reasons.

1) even deterministic analytical laws can possess a chaotic behaviour.
Example: Newton's Gravitational Law says that the force interaction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance ( ie proportional to the factor 1/d^2 ). This is a perfectly analytical and deterministic law. You can plot it and see nice parabolas or ellipses.
But if you try to find an analytical solution for three bodies, you surely fail, and you find a lot of chaotic behaviour. You will see a lot of strange patterns.
A clockwork mechanism like the Solar System, which appears to be perfect, includes in its behaviour some sort of chaos.

2) the distinction between a deterministic system and a chaotic system is only academical. All real systems possess some sort of chaotic behaviour. Can you find two stars in the sky, or two lakes on Earth, that are equal? Every system in the universe contains some portion of chaos. And this is due to strong non-linearities that are part of the physics of the system and cannot be treated analytically (therefore deterministically).

The consequences of both 1 and 2 above are that the future is unpredictable for any system. Any artificial or natural system, any living or inanimate system. The future is unpredictable.

This impossibility equally applies to the weather, to a cloud, to a river, to my car, to my computer, to my cat, and to myself, independent whether or not the system possesses a psyche.

The fact that you Marco state that our psyche is a trascendent unphysical element is an additional consideration. And another additional consideration is that the unpredictability is due only to this trascendental element.

These two considerations do not explain many things, like for example why also cats and mosquitoes are unpredictable.
It does not even explain where this trascendent unphysical element comes from, and when in our life.

[Felgar]

The consequences of both 1 and 2 above are that the future is unpredictable for any system. Any artificial or natural system, any living or inanimate system. The future is unpredictable.

I disagree here. Regardless of whether the system is chaotic or not (as defined by Marco and also as demostrated in your example #1) the future is very predictable. Given all of the initial conditions and the proper laws to describe the elements of the system, many systems are highly predictable.

This predictability is what enables us to send a probe that travels 3.5 Billion kilometers over a seven year period, slingshotting 4 planets in the process, and then shooting through a gap in Saturn's rings in order to settle into orbit around the planet. The simple fact is that unless an outside element is brought into the system to disrupt it, the solar system itself is extremely predictable.

Same for computers. Given a set of starting conditions, we can predict the exact finishing state unless you redifine the elements that can interact with the system (i.e. hardware failure) in which case you actually haven't taken into account all starting factors, have you? That is what defines deterministic system, and chaotic properties of that system really have nothing to do with it's determinism.

Now, that's not to say that all system are deterministic because they can be influenced by something not governed by a law - our psyches, for instance.

[tarreyl]

mastermind

genesis 1
verse 26
Then god said, 'let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life- the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals and small

hebrew 11
verse 3
by faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at god's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen

ok so my point is that i wanted fact that scientist belive we came from apes scientist just have opions that we came from apes and monkey that we evoled from them if them? is there any proof? why do scientist thing that because there where the only being around we couldnt come from anthor it just theory. If you want to think you came from monkeys master mind show me proof what scientist said how they came up with this stuff.

[Mastermind]

mastermind

genesis 1
verse 26
Then god said, 'let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life- the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals and small

hebrew 11
verse 3
by faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at god's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen

*gasp* I've never seen these verses before. OMG what am I gonna do my entire faith is shattered!

ok so my point is that i wanted fact that scientist belive we came from apes scientist just have opions that we came from apes and monkey that we evoled from them if them? is there any proof? why do scientist thing that because there where the only being around we couldnt come from anthor it just theory. If you want to think you came from monkeys master mind show me proof what scientist said how they came up with this stuff.

I don't believe we came from monkeys. And no evolutionist believes that either. they believe we came from a common ancestor.

[marcobiagini]

Dear Alien,

I find no logics in your last post. Please read my definition of choaotic system and think about it more carefully. I agree with Felgar's answer to your post.

Marco

[Alien]

I disagree here. Regardless of whether the system is chaotic or not (as defined by Marco and also as demostrated in your example #1) the future is very predictable. Given all of the initial conditions and the proper laws to describe the elements of the system, many systems are highly predictable.

This predictability is what enables us to send a probe that travels 3.5 Billion kilometers over a seven year period, slingshotting 4 planets in the process, and then shooting through a gap in Saturn's rings in order to settle into orbit around the planet. The simple fact is that unless an outside element is brought into the system to disrupt it, the solar system itself is extremely predictable.

Same for computers. Given a set of starting conditions, we can predict the exact finishing state unless you redifine the elements that can interact with the system (i.e. hardware failure) in which case you actually haven't taken into account all starting factors, have you? That is what defines deterministic system, and chaotic properties of that system really have nothing to do with it's determinism.

Now, that's not to say that all system are deterministic because they can be influenced by something not governed by a law - our psyches, for instance.

Now we should distinguish better between what we all mean when we say "future is predictable" or "future is unpredictable".

I am only saying that nothing is absolutely 100% predictable. Even if the future is 99% predictable, this means very little to me, because I don't know what that 1% could be. You are not really disagreeing with me, when you say "the future is highly predictable". By using "highly", you imply something like 60-70-80%, or even 99%, or even 99.9%, but surely not 100%.

We could say that an airplane is a "highly predictable" system, for example its reliability could be 10^5. This means that it is 99.9999% predictable. But, when I fly with an airplane, that 0.0001% difference might kill me. And this difference might be an unpredictable malfunction in a computer, despite your optimism.

And there are many systems that are much less predictable than an airplane.

Of course there is some sort of predictability, and of course this allows us to send the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft to Saturn (I am even proud of it, because I am an aerospace engineer), but you should not forget that some spacecraft failed or got lost, or simply needed route corrections, and we can't predict this in advance. If future is not 100% predictable, then 1% or 99.9% makes no difference in my conclusion that it is "practically" unpredictable.

For clarity, I rearrange my statement by saying "future is not 100% predictable, therefore unpredictable in principle".

And, Marco, concerning chaotic systems, my position is that chaos is implicit in any real system. Real, not academic or theoretical. This is why we can't have 100% but only 10% or 99% predictability, depending on cases.

In summary, you are saying that real systems can be divided into two categories: deterministic and chaotic.
I am saying that any real system contains a part of determinism and a part of chaos (in any mixture). My universe is simpler than yours.

Then you are saying that amongst real systems, there are some that can be influenced by "something not governed by a law, like our psyche". You also say that this is the only reason why a system becomes unpredictable. This means that all what possesses a psyche is unpredictable and all what doesn't is predictable.

I am saying that there is no need to claim the psyche for unpredictability, because nothing is 100% predictable.

And there is no need to justify the psyche as the appearance of an unphysical entity called "soul".

Even more, in doing so, you introduce additional unsolved problems, like for example: "where does the soul come from?", "when in my life do I get it?", "what about other living organisms?", etc

[marcobiagini]

Dear Alien,

I have never said that "the real systems can be divided into two categories: deterministic and chaotic", as you have wrote. I have simply given the classical definition of chaotic systems.
The point is that in classical physics, the universe is IN PRINCIPLE predictable; our incapacity to predict the evolution of a given system is not INTRINSIC to the universe, but it is only due to our lack of knowledge of all initial conditions. So, the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations, even if we are unable to predict exactly the state of the universe. Since our incapacity to predict exactly the evolution of the universe has an extrinsic origin (our lack of knowledge), such incapacity is irrilevant, as far as my argument for the existence of God is concerned. In fact, independently from the fact we are able or unable to predict exactly the evolution of physical systems, the fact that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations is sufficient to prove the existence of a conscious and intelligent God. The intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws ruling the universe implies the existence of a personal God.

marco

[Felgar]

I am only saying that nothing is absolutely 100% predictable. Even if the future is 99% predictable, this means very little to me, because I don't know what that 1% could be.

You are arguing semantics here, and in practice your 'uncertainty' is irrelevant. First let me point out that nothing IS 100% predictable because I believe God could change something at any time - miracles might be defined as occurences where our natural laws do not hold. But we're not talking about miracles, we're talking about the laws of our physical universe, which are in principle deterministic and thus predictable. I think you're confused about 2 things: 1) What determinism means, and 2) what a system is.

(From Webster's def'n #1)
System: A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

Ok, so when you say that a system is never predictable, this is false and I believe the reason is that you are incapable of defining a system. See, when defining a system, you have to set aside a group of interacting elements - and that is your system. So let's take our solar system - the sun, the nine planets, the comets (which we know little about) and the asteriod belt are part of this system. THIS system is entirely predictable in that if we knew the location, size, mass, and velocity of every object within it, we can determine the system's exact state at a point in time in the future.

But wait, what if another star passed close enough to influence our system? Well then your system is no longer predictable because it has been acted on by an element not contained within it. Your original definition of the system was incomplete. And of course, we can never rule out interference from something unnatural (like if we blow up an asteroid, or if God simply moves a planet). But holding onto the fact that the solar system is unpredictable is really a ludicrous notion because the chances of anything external interferring with the system is negligable. We make an assumption and move on - and frankly I see no reason for NOT making that assumption.

but you should not forget that some spacecraft failed or got lost, or simply needed route corrections, and we can't predict this in advance.

Only because we did not account for every element that could cause a failure - the definition of our system was incomplete. You know, the complex factors like a centimeter not being equal in length to a inch.

In summary, you are saying that real systems can be divided into two categories: deterministic and chaotic.
I am saying that any real system contains a part of determinism and a part of chaos (in any mixture).

I'm trying to be gentle, but it seems like you are not understanding what I'm saying, and this statement reveals your ignorance. Determinism has NOTHING to do with a system being chaotic. There's deterministic and non-deterministic, and that's it. Ordered vs. chaotic are a completely different concept altogether.

(From Webster's def'n 1, 3rd entry)
Deterministic: <probability> Describes a system whose time evolution can
be predicted exactly.

See, a deterministic system is one where the future state can be predicted exactly. Even if there are no natural ones, I could make a theoretical system that IS deterministic, because within that I can define the system completely and keep it free of other influences. I recommend you research Turing State machines - Alan Turing who was a pioneer of computing (and who had a huge part of our winning WWII through his work breaking German codes) worked on the principles of determinism. And really, most computer code is nothing but glorified Turing State machines which are by definition determinstic.

When you finally understand determinism, contrast with chaos which I feel that Marco adequately defined:

A chaotic system is defined as a system where a tiny change in the initial condition causes huge changes in the future states. The incapacity to predict the evolution of a chaotic system is then simply due to our incapacity to know perfectly all initial conditions.

So a choatic system is more difficult to predict in practice because extremely small innacuracies in the measurements of our starting conditions causes large changes in the results of our predictions. In theory though, where we CAN define an exact starting state, a chaotic system is no less predictable than any other.

If this is still not clear, I think I need to know your age and status of education - because I'm not sure that any further explanation (like demonstrating a Turing machine) will help.

[Dan]

To clarify, computers are not 100% deterministic, the average computer processor makes a computation error once every few billion calculations. They are incredibly deterministic, but not totally.

Also, the uncertainty principle pretty much bars you from ever knowing the exact location and exact velocity of an object. On larger scales this is pretty much irrelevant because the difference is on the scale of atoms, but on the subatomic scale it becomes incredibly prevalent.

You CAN'T know exactly where a comet is and exactly how fast it is moving, you can get close, down to a billionth of a meter, but you can't ever know exactly where and how fast that comet is going.

Classical physics are only an approximation of our quantum universe. Only God can know everything, us humans are stuck with never being able to determine anything exactly (we can only use probabilities).

[Alien]

in classical physics, the universe is IN PRINCIPLE predictable

Understood and agreed, partially.
But only when we use linear mathematical laws. When we deal with non-linear mathematical laws, then it might be impossible to mathematically predict the behaviour of a system, even simple.

the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations

Not quite understood/agreed.
The evolution over time of a system is ruled by mathematical laws.
The state of the system at a certain point in time depends by the initial conditions considered. The state of the system is a statical picture and it depends from all previous states, which are the evolution of the system.

The evolution is described by mathematical laws (differential equations with variable t = time). These mathematical laws are in principle deterministic. These equations are deterministic because if we integrate them by assigning precise initial values to all variables, we can get precise integrated equations describing the evolution of the system over time.
But... careful, please!
Not always this happens.

our incapacity to predict the evolution of a given system is not INTRINSIC to the universe, but it is only due to our lack of knowledge of all initial conditions

Sorry, totally disagreed.
Our incapacity to predict the evolution of a system might actually be intrinsic to the system!
This is exactly the difference between what said Laplace and what said Poincaré.
Consider a "deterministic" system, completely described by differential equations. You can assign EXACT numerical values to the initial conditions, and... surprise! when you integrate the equations you find a chaotic behaviour.
The compound pendulum is a good example.
In some cases, you are even unable to integrate the equations.
The three body problem is another good example.

Chaos IS intrinsic to the universe, even intrinsic to deterministic systems. And, consequence of this is that the universe

In fact, independently from the fact we are able or unable to predict exactly the evolution of physical systems, the fact that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations is sufficient to prove the existence of a conscious and intelligent God. The intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws ruling the universe implies the existence of a personal God.

Again, it's the evolution of the universe, and not the state of it that it can be described by mathematical equations.

But, nevertheless, my conclusions are:

1) chaotic behaviour is intrinsic to deterministic systems (mathematically demonstrated)
2) therefore, chaos is intrinsic to the universe
3) therefore it's very hard to demonstrate the existence of a conscious and intelligent entity behind this "chaotic determinism" (mathematical rules could have been written in an ordered way).

Please consider that this same argument cannot demonstrate anything also about the "non-existence" of a conscious and intelligent entity. That's why I am an agnostic and not an atheist. Nothing can demonstrate existence or non-existence of God, because it's only a question of faith and not of science.

Even more, any abstract nature of these laws, chaotic or not, can only demonstrate that time and matter exist and can somehow evolve. The absence of these laws (of any type) would only imply the absence of time and matter, not the existence of an intelligent designer.

[marcobiagini]

Our incapacity to predict the evolution of a system might actually be intrinsic to the system!
This is exactly the difference between what said Laplace and what said Poincaré.
Consider a "deterministic" system, completely described by differential equations. You can assign EXACT numerical values to the initial conditions, and... surprise! when you integrate the equations you find a chaotic behaviour.
The compound pendulum is a good example.
In some cases, you are even unable to integrate the equations.
The three body problem is another good example.
Chaos IS intrinsic to the universe, even intrinsic to deterministic systems. And, consequence of this is that the universe

Completely wrong. You do not undertand what chaos is. Chaos is in fact only the extreme "sensitivity to initial conditions" mathematically present in certain systems. Since we cannot know exactly the exact initial conditions for these systems, we cannot have long-term mathematical predictions, even if we can still have short-term predictions.
I any case, if you assign exact values to the initial conditions and you integrate exactly the equations, you find no chaos, but a well determined solution; this is mathematically proved. Chaos is always EXTRINSIC, and it is due to our lack of knowledge of the exact initial conditions or eventually to our incapacity to integrate exactly the equations.

But, nevertheless, my conclusions are:

1) chaotic behaviour is intrinsic to deterministic systems (mathematically demonstrated)
2) therefore, chaos is intrinsic to the universe
3) therefore it's very hard to demonstrate the existence of a conscious and intelligent entity behind this "chaotic determinism" (mathematical rules could have been written in an ordered way).

Your point 1 simply means that certain deterministic systems show an extreme sensitivity to the initial conditions(this is in fact the mathematical definiion of chaos); this is however irrilevant.
Your point 2 is wrong; in fact the incapacity to predict the evolution of the system is not intrinsic in the universe, but it is due only to our lack of knowledge of the exact initial conditions or to our incapacity to solve exactly the equations. Consider that in any case we are able to obtain short-term accurate solutions. Your point 3 is irrilevant.

My argument proving God's existence still holds.

Since this discussion is getting too repetitive, I'll stop here, unless some new good argument is raised.

Best regards,

Marco

[Alien]

I think you're confused about 2 things: 1) What determinism means, and 2) what a system is.

If I look confused it's only because the written communication has some well known disadvantages, and I am not really managing it well. Adding more sentences to other sentences could be counterproductive for clarity, I imagine, and the result could even be that there are more occasions to be criticised. I would try to be shorter, but it is almost impossible if I have to reply from many sides. Apologies.

Believe it or not, I know what determinism is and what a system is. And I can give you a definition that comprehends both concepts: a deterministic system is a system for which it is possible to integrate over time its differential equations, in order to get an analytical time history in form of further integrated equations.

Ok, so when you say that a system is never predictable, this is false and I believe the reason is that you are incapable of defining a system.

I said that a real system is never 100% predictable. Therefore, a real system is never 100% deterministic, even if ruled by deterministic laws. And this is because we can't model its behaviour at 100%. And this is because of several factors:
- insufficient accuracy of the mathematical laws
- impossibility to measure initial parameters
- insufficient accuracy in calculations
etc
A theoretical system could be 100% predictable: in this case it's a deterministic system.
But, the factors that prevent us from an exact modelling could be the same as before.
But let's go on.

So let's take our solar system - the sun, the nine planets, the comets (which we know little about) and the asteriod belt are part of this system. THIS system is entirely predictable in that if we knew the location, size, mass, and velocity of every object within it, we can determine the system's exact state at a point in time in the future.

Sorry, I was always trying to distinguish between real and theoretical systems. But here, I have got the feeling that the disagreement (or misunderstanding?) is mainly on the fact that I consider chaos as intrinsic in the Solar System, and you don't.

For what I said before, we have that:

1. Newton's gravitational Law rules the Solar System according to the 1/d^2 law
2. this law is perfectly deterministic, and we can see it when we model two bodies and their evolution
3. if we apply this law to three bodies, we get a three-dimensional matrix that contains differential equations applied to the three bodies dynamics.
4. when we try to integrate analytically the differential equations, to get the evolution in time, we realise that the equations are not analytically integrable.
5. even more, when we try to integrate numerically, we find cahotic behaviour
6. even more, the chaotic behaviour is intrinsic to the three bodies system because it can be tested or observed

Item 6 demonstrates that any gravitational system (deterministic as you like) with more than two bodies contains a chaotic component. And this is independent on the fact that we are not able to know all initial parameters.

When you say that if we knew all initial parameters in an exact way we could predict the evolution of the system, then I start to be concerned. This is another key point.

7. In theoretical systems, you can always assume that you know all initial parameters.
8. In a real system you are NEVER able to know all initial parameters (Heisenberg principle, tested)

Therefore, we continue with real systems only, because there is no disagreement (or misunderstanding??) about theoretical systems.

Due to 8 above, applying it to the fact that the Solar System (based on deterministic Newton's law) is intrinsically chaotic, we get that we are never able to exactly predict the evolution of our spacecraft Cassini-Huygens.

I don't like to consider a possibility ("if we knew") that is totally impossible and not scientific.

But wait, what if another star passed close enough to influence our system? Well then your system is no longer predictable because it has been acted on by an element not contained within it.

Not exactly.
An additional body travelling into the Solar System would not change the "chaotic determinism" intrinsic of the system itself (due to Newton's law).
It would not change the fact that it is potentially unpredictable (or not 100% predictable).
It would not turn the predictability into unpredictability.
It would not change the equations.
It would not change our impossibility to know all parameters.

It would just modify its equilibrium point.

It could be a dysaster because the equilibrium of a planet could be spoiled. Here we could talk about stability and equilibrium for pages and pages. I only reply that it would be a perturbation that might be sufficient to modify the tiny stable equilibrium of the Earth or other planets.

But holding onto the fact that the solar system is unpredictable is really a ludicrous notion because the chances of anything external interferring with the system is negligable. We make an assumption and move on - and frankly I see no reason for NOT making that assumption.

As said above, I am not using the term "unpredictable" in absolute terms. It is not fully 100% predictable, therefore it is somehow "unpredictable". It's not playing with semantics: it's my attitude to avoid absolute quantities. You are probably more comfortable than me with absolute concepts. Apologies.

Only because we did not account for every element that could cause a failure - the definition of our system was incomplete. You know, the complex factors like a centimeter not being equal in length to a inch.

Your example is really important (it happened to an airplane: they run out of fuel because of confusion between gallons and liters! I think it was in Canada!!!), but it is not the type of things I was thinking of.

I am saying that failures are unpredictable. But let's go on.

I'm trying to be gentle, but it seems like you are not understanding what I'm saying, and this statement reveals your ignorance. Determinism has NOTHING to do with a system being chaotic. There's deterministic and non-deterministic, and that's it. Ordered vs. chaotic are a completely different concept altogether.

As said before, I disagree (not on the fact that you try to be gentle!!!!!! I appreciate, believe me).
There is definitely chaos within deterministic systems. Just solve your differential equations (once again, deterministic, yes).

Ah, and here I remember that I was criticized also by Dan, about the weather chaos. Write the differential equations that describe atmospheric phenomena (I don't recall them, of course: I can look for them and I will post them): when you integrate them, you find chaotic behaviour also for them. And, again, I don't care about "if we exactly knew every parameter", because this is impossible.

Weather is chaotic even if ruled by deterministic equations, and given that (for accepted/agreed reasons) we can never precisely model its behaviour, I am entitled to conclude that we can never exactly predict its evolution. And, if we can't exactly predict its evolution, in practical terms it is not 100% deterministic. You defined (correctly) determinism as 100% predictability.

If something is not 100% predictabile, for whatever reason, sorry, then it is not 100% deterministic.

See, a deterministic system is one where the future state can be predicted exactly. Even if there are no natural ones, I could make a theoretical system that IS deterministic, because within that I can define the system completely and keep it free of other influences. I recommend you research Turing State machines - Alan Turing who was a pioneer of computing (and who had a huge part of our winning WWII through his work breaking German codes) worked on the principles of determinism. And really, most computer code is nothing but glorified Turing State machines which are by definition determinstic.

Here I agree and I have no problems. But I disagree with the Turing test for distinguishing a person from a computer. But this is out of topic.

When you finally understand determinism, contrast with chaos which I feel that Marco adequately defined:

So a choatic system is more difficult to predict in practice because extremely small innacuracies in the measurements of our starting conditions causes large changes in the results of our predictions. In theory though, where we CAN define an exact starting state, a chaotic system is no less predictable than any other.

I thought Marco said something slightly different. Apologies.

I don't disagree with the fact that we can start with a set of equations, a set of exactly defined initial conditions, and therefore come up to a set of time equations that predict the system.
I am saying that there is chaos even in deterministic systems. And here, I understood Marco was of a different opinion.

Question now, please (let's forget predictability at the moment):
Would you agree that chaos is implicit in a deterministic system? As in my example of the three bodies and Solar System?
Would you agree that chaos is implicit in a non-deterministic system?

If you answer no, then I would like to know in which point exactly you disagree.
If you answerw yes, then I go on with my basic question to Marco (and to anyone):

How can you demonstrate the existence of an intelligent creator only on the basis of physical laws that contain chaotic behaviour?

If this is still not clear, I think I need to know your age and status of education - because I'm not sure that any further explanation (like demonstrating a Turing machine) will help.

I have no difficulty to give more info about myself:

born 1954 in Turin. University grade in aeronautical engineering. One year doctorate in aerospace engineering (then stopped because of military service and job). Working since 1982 as a development engineer in Flight Control Systems (fly-by-wire) for high performance aircraft. Reader of Scientific American magazine.