Predictable or unpredictable?

[tock~tick]

I know this isn't really a philosophy question, but it seems like the best place for it.
If i was to say for arguments sake "God is so predictable, because he is unpredictable" Does that make God predictable or unpredictable? NB i didn't use God for any reason, just the first thing that came in to my head.
I'll be interested to hear your ideas, thanks.

[wuliheron]

The statement is ambiguous along the lines of saying "Up is down". An astronaut in orbit might make such a statement to another and, because of the context, the other astronaut can glean the meaning of the statement. However, when you start making such statements in the context of life, the universe, and everything there is no clear meaning discernible.

[apeiron]

We just had a long thread on the apparent paradox of predictable unpredictability - http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=453875

But you might be trying to get at the more genuine paradox of self-contradictory statements - like the power of an omipotent god to create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it.

That too has been frequently discussed here, but not for a wee while.

[baywax]

I know this isn't really a philosophy question, but it seems like the best place for it.
If i was to say for arguments sake "God is so predictable, because he is unpredictable" Does that make God predictable or unpredictable? NB i didn't use God for any reason, just the first thing that came in to my head.
I'll be interested to hear your ideas, thanks.

Apparently predictability is dependent upon observation and observation is said to determine the behaviour of an object (the observer effect: physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics))).

I think observation and perception work in two ways... in that if I am expecting a phenomenon to act in a certain way this is what I will perceive taking place. The reverse is that if a phenomenon (such as a human subject) knows they are being observed they will act differently than if they know they are not being observed. Both cases carry with them a certain amount of predictability.

We can safely say that predictability is entirely dependent upon there being an observer. So, it is definitely an anthropocentric activity. A rock doesn't have any concept to speak of let alone have a concept of predictability.

If one writes that something they've observed is "predictably unpredictable" the statement cancels out both options and renders the phenomenon benign in the mind of the reader. A comet is only unpredictable or predictable in the presence of an observer. Without this condition, the comet is simply doing what a comet does.

Uncertainty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty) is a concept that fits well with your question.

As soon as you say "uncertainty is certain" you may be wrong... because that is the nature of uncertainty. The same can be true of predictability, you may predict an unpredictable outcome of an event... but your prediction may be wrong. That is the nature of being an emergent phenomenon with emergent properties that include "being wrong" due to a "limited capacity" to fully understand the mechanisms involved in this entire universe.