And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect accurace
-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater times
becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite. You are mixing the plurarity of the future with
existance. The fact is that the energy content right _now_ is finite. It
cannot be otherwise! The refute this implies that our existance (wave
state) right is not a certainty (deterministic). Now you are not going
to say you don't exist are you?

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

But, if all the information contained in the universe is finite, your
premise is incorrect -i.e. we cannot be infinitely ignorant.



Who said that all the information in the universe was finite?


Let us consider, for a moment, the properties of a sub-atomic particle ...
an electron.

For our example, I would invite you to take only *one* of the atoms of
oxygen that exist in the room that you are currently sitting in. .. (I
assume that you are seated).


Now, I invite you to consider the information that might pertain to that
single electron. We might consider it's mass! We might consider it's
position in space! Perhaps we might also consider it's position in space at
a specific point in the past. We might even try to forecst where it will be
at a specific point in the future.


As there are an infinite number of points of time in the future - there are
an infinite number of bits of information about this single electron. In
fact, there are an infinite number of points in time in the next second. As
you can see, there is an infinite amount of knowledge about the existence of
a single electron over the next second of its' existence.


To disprove your theory even further, we can either take our electron and go
down to smaller particles, or we can go up to bigger entities.


Either way, you are wrong. It is amazing, but with my knowledge of man's
ignorance, I can prove that you know nothing about the nature of knowledge!



Regards


Donal
--