[Merdoug]

So I'm only 200 years behind; huh? :)
Obviously a computer capable of tracking the total number of subatomic particles in the universe would be immense, but the total number of particles is finite; isn't it? Your "proton counting stuff; is that a result of an observer changing what he is observing? If that's the case, then if one uses only mathematics and doesn't actally try to measure anything, then he wouldn't affect it, would he? And even if he did, WHICHEVER number that he chose would be the correct one, since my theory means that there is only ONE future path, and no matter what we do, we can only make the one decision: any idea of choice is an illusion. The future is already laid out and we can't change it; no matter what we do.
The subatomic decay with no apparent cause really messes up my "motion" theory, however. My theory depends upon one interaction causing the next. Spontanious events won't fit in.

[Physicist]

Obviously a computer capable of tracking the total number of subatomic particles in the universe would be immense, but the total number of particles is finite; isn't it?

It doesn't matter. The size of the calculation still grows exponentially with time. Pick a computer of any size you want. Eventually it will fall behind.

Your "[photon] counting stuff; is that a result of an observer changing what he is observing? If that's the case, then if one uses only mathematics and doesn't actally try to measure anything, then he wouldn't affect it, would he?

No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm assuming Cartesian non-interfering omniscience (bunkum as that may be). My point is that there's no finite numbering scheme that you can use as the basis of grinding out your calculations. You ultimately have to pick some point at which you say, "I'm not including the rest of these photons in my calculations." And because you have to exclude some particles from your calculation, your answer can't really be exactly right.

And even if he did, WHICHEVER number that he chose would be the correct one, since my theory means that there is only ONE future path, and no matter what we do, we can only make the one decision: any idea of choice is an illusion.

How do you define "choice"?

[William Tell]

Merdoug said: The subatomic decay with no apparent cause really messes up my "motion" theory, however.

It's probably even worse than you think.

Every particle in the universe exhibits both particle and wave behavior. The wave describing a particular particle is a function of space, describing the location of the particle, and time, describing the motion of the particle.

The value of the wave equation at any point in space relates to the probability of observing the particle at that position . Some positions will be more probable than others. But any position where the wave equation has a non-zero value represents a position where the particle might be found.

Einstein was very troubled by this aspect of quantum physics. He said "God does not play dice" with the universe. Einstein thought that it might be possible to know the value of some hidden variables that would then allow one to eliminate the uncertainty which is represented by the wave equations. Recent experiments support the idea that there are no hidden variables. The observed position of a particular particle is unknowable until after the observation is made.

This means that your computer program would be picking a value to use for the outcome of an interaction from all the possible values provided by the wave equation. There is no way that the computer is going to "pick" the same value that the actual universe "picks". This uncertainty would apply to every particle and every interaction.