Slap,

Your 'understand' implies the ability to ascertain what the possible future states of the system are. If you can't do that you can't create probabilitiies. I actually had this discussion with Col Warden and we just not get past the point where acknowlegdes he needed te 'effect' what I was calling prediction (develp knowledge of what produces future states of the system) and simply disagreed that such a thing constithted 'predictin'. To him it was n ot 'prediction if you not 100 percent certain it was correct-like a physics equation.

He can define his terms how ever he wants, but point is that whatever you call i, the ability to project ahead in time the effect a set of perterbations will have on the future state of a complex system is not computable as a set iof probabilities. It would be nice if it were, but its not

My point about breaking is about the model breaking not about breaking the adversary system if you simplify the model of the system past the point of irreducibility it becomes b roken as a predictive tool (or that function that shall not be called prediction).

If your only desired effect is to 'kill the patient' then you are effectively engaging in nuclear warfare by conventional means.