formulating calibrated insights computing probable understanding predicting precise futures exploring intelligent forecasts modeling quantitative predictions mapping the future forecasting critical insights generating quantitative insights predicting quantitative wisdom assembling quantitative insights forecasting definitive futures forecasting accurate understanding composing critical insights crowdsourcing quantitative contingencies

Question

Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Are there physical systems with properties that are impossible in principle to predict?

Godel's first incompleteness theorem, one of the most celebrated results in mathematics, asserts that in sufficiently complex axiomatic formal systems there will be statements that are knowably true, yet unprovable within the formal system.

A related result due to Turing proves that the halting problem (of determining whether a general computer program will halt or run forever) is undecidable in that no Turing Machine exists that can solve it.

Though of deep importance in mathematics and theoretical computer science, these results have generally been considered to have few if any implications for physics, and by extension the natural world. (Though see this result in classical physics, and the extended discussions by Penrose, Chaitin, Barrow, Tegmark and Aaronson.)

A fascinating new result by Cubitt, Perez-Garcia, and Wolf (CPW; see Nature paper and infinitely long arXiv paper) suggests that the implications may be stronger than previously thought. They prove that in certain idealized quantum systems, the existence of a finite energy "gap" between the ground state and first excited state is formally undecidable. They moreover prove that as the number of lattice sites L increases toward infinite, a gap may appear and/or disappear at values of L that are undecidable.

This result potentially calls into question standard operating procedure in many quantum many-body physics problems. However, its applicability to realistic physical systems is as yet unclear, calling for further work.

In the next year will a paper be published establishing a new version of, extension to, or result derived from, Cubitt et al.'s theorem that applies to an actually existing physical system (including one fabricated in the lab for this purpose)?

{{qctrl.predictionString()}}

Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.