There almost certainly is but you can’t collect the data. At some point quantum effects will come into play too.
Theoretically all physical processes are predictable, but in practice there is a limit.
Theoretically all physical processes are predictable, but in practice there is a limit.
I want to be clear that my point is not merely a technical one. I'm not just saying "it's technically impossible to have complete knowledge," I'm saying that it is physically, mathematically impossible. The laws of physics do not allow it. One might argue "maybe it's not possible, but if we did know the complete quantum state of the universe, the universe would be deterministic and we could predict everything," but this is equivalent to saying "if the laws of physics were different, then the universe would be deterministic."
Edit: To the distinction you make between "physical" and "quantum" processes: There is no distinction. Quantum effects do diminish in magnitude with increasing size, but they never truly go away. You can predict the motion of macroscopic objects with what may seem to be an arbitrarily high degree of certainty, but in truth you can never have 100% complete knowledge of even macroscopic properties. I still disagree with your claim that the universe is deterministic in any way, even if you conveniently exclude systems for which quantum effects are substantial.
If you count a radioactive decay event as a physical process, then this is not so.
I would go the other route. Nothing can be predicted, except statistically.
Which I wasn't. You clearly are. Yes, quantum stuff exists. At the scales the OP was talking about though they are mostly insignificant therefore I hand-waved them because they were not relevant to the discussion.
But that’s also because that’s where the really interesting work is.
It’s quite a different scope of conversation
But for the context of the physical processes the OP was talking about those effects are not significant and so I excluded them.
So you defined away quantum effects as 'not physical', which most people would not agree with. How do feel about the theoretical limits on measurement accuracy that also negate your claim?