Chaos theory

[Anomalocaris]

Well that would be a thing much like a mouse releasing a mousetrap. Hardly a good example.

Except this is not just one mouse trap, but many, each of them different. Some of them powerful enough to kill a tyrannosaurs. And perhaps some of them set to snap shut on a trigger for a stick of dynamite, or even the trigger for a nuclear bomb.

When you drop a pebble, your precision is not such that you can predict which one, if any, it will land on. Your knowledge of the traps is not such that you call say ahead of time whether each of trap will shut if the pebble lands on it, and whether the trap, if closing, will trigger any bombs that might be rigged to the cheese plate. This is a better approximation of the idea of chaos.

[Rhizomorph13]

When you drop a pebble, your precision is not such that you can predict which one, if any, it will land on. Your knowledge of the traps is not such that you call say ahead of time whether each of trap will shut if the pebble lands on it, and whether the trap, if closing, will trigger any bombs that might be rigged to the cheese plate. This is a better approximation of the idea of chaos.

Yes, chaos theory definitely, but not germane to a discussion about the butterfly effect. The butterfly effect isn't about a butterfly flying past a sensor that triggers a weather machine.

I don't believe in chaos. Given enough data and enough compute power we could probably calculate the results. Oh, or even better, they all happen in parallel universes. No, I'm not just trying to be a wanker. If m-theory is correct, then all possibilities occur and I don't know how to explain why we only perceive the one we actually perceive.

[bennyboy]

When you drop a pebble, your precision is not such that you can predict which one, if any, it will land on. Your knowledge of the traps is not such that you call say ahead of time whether each of trap will shut if the pebble lands on it, and whether the trap, if closing, will trigger any bombs that might be rigged to the cheese plate. This is a better approximation of the idea of chaos.

Yes, chaos theory definitely, but not germane to a discussion about the butterfly effect. The butterfly effect isn't about a butterfly flying past a sensor that triggers a weather machine.

I don't believe in chaos. Given enough data and enough compute power we could probably calculate the results. Oh, or even better, they all happen in parallel universes. No, I'm not just trying to be a wanker. If m-theory is correct, then all possibilities occur and I don't know how to explain why we only perceive the one we actually perceive.

Ignoring trigger events is wrong, IMO. Even an eddy of wind can be a trigger event if it is the straw that broke the back of a slightly larger eddy on the verge of changing direction or whatever.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, chaos theory definitely, but not germane to a discussion about the butterfly effect. The butterfly effect isn't about a butterfly flying past a sensor that triggers a weather machine.

I don't believe in chaos. Given enough data and enough compute power we could probably calculate the results. Oh, or even better, they all happen in parallel universes. No, I'm not just trying to be a wanker. If m-theory is correct, then all possibilities occur and I don't know how to explain why we only perceive the one we actually perceive.

Ignoring trigger events is wrong, IMO. Even an eddy of wind can be a trigger event if it is the straw that broke the back of a slightly larger eddy on the verge of changing direction or whatever.

I failed to see how M-theory is relevant. M-theory merely stipulates all possible outcomes occur when examined across the whole m-space. It says nothing about which possible outcome occurs in which part of m-space.

Chaos theory says in many situations, which of the possible outcomes occurs in which part of m-space is much harder to predict than might be envisioned in classical physics of 19th century.

The only objection you raised boils down to this "if I fave perfect knowledge and perfect foresight, then I can predict everything". QM sets limit on just how perfect knowledge and foresight can be, and it is not perfect enough at even its most perfect to predict everything. But even without going to the granularity of QM, chaos theory say some systems are divergent, that is to say accuracy of prediction that can be made of it are particularly sensitive to Inexactness of knowledge and imperfection of foresight. Others are convergent, which is to say accuracy of prediction that can be made of it are insensitive to Inexactness of knowledge or imperfection of foresight.

[Thumpalumpacus]

From what I've seen, things tend toward the average of forces around them, so I don't believe that small changes can result in huge results. I would point out the effects of a small stone on a lake; at no point has anyone ever dropped a pebble in a lake and suddenly there was a giant wave on the other side of that lake. There are situations where it appears that small change resulted in huge results like when Rosa Parks wouldn't move to the back of the bus. The thing with that particular action was that the prevailing force behind the change that came after was already in place. There was also a sustaining movement that rallied behind the change to push it forward.

Can anyone else come up with an example of small change resulting in larger results?

It just seems to go against the conservation of energy.

I remember reading that scientists ran an experiment injecting water into the San Andreas fault, which seemed to instigate a succession of small earthquakes. I wouldn't regard Ms Parks's action and its fallout as results of chaos theory insofar as the events unfolded among willing agents, rather than mindless interactions.

It's my understanding that systems which have a multiplicity of variables will find points of stability wherein all those variables will act in a predictable manner, but that if one of those variables sees significant change, there stands a good chance that the other variables will react in ways that can further disrupt the equilibrium.

An example that springs to mind immediately is global warming: the warmer the globe, the more ice is melted at the poles. That reduces the Earth's albedo, meaning that the ocean will directly absorb more sunlight and turn it into heat, as well as evaporating more water, which will raise the average temperature even more, which will reduce the albedo ... you get the picture: a runaway effect can occur to a stable system given a large-enough variance. Obviously, there can be factors which inhibit such cycles (and in the example, there seem to be); but I'm using this to illustrate my point, not argue a factual position.

[FreeTony]

I don't believe in chaos. Given enough data and enough compute power we could probably calculate the results.

That's exactly the point. You can still exactly determine the outcome if you have a given set of starting conditions and a perfect computer. The point is that we don't. For a linear set of differential equations this isn't too much of a problem, but for a non-linear set it is.

You don't need to go anywhere near QM, and stay firmly in the classical realm.