Chaos theory

[MagetheEntertainer]

How many of you believe in the probability of Chaos theory? In case you didn't know, Chaos Theory is basically the theory that very small events can have drastic changes on much larger events that will take place in the far future. So for example if a particular butterfly in brazil flaps its wings right now, it may cause a hurricane 3 years from now that is suppose to go to Georgia get sent off course to New York. Or if you skip taking a shower today then the patriots will lose the superbowl 5 years from now. So go ahead, whats your thoughts?

[The Grand Nudger]

Praise Bob! Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia! Slack is the Law, Slack under Chill.
(the things you mentioned don't sound like chaos, more an invocation of the limits of our ability to chain causality from one end to the other, my opinion, anyway.)

[ignoramus]

I s'pose that's why they call it chaos.
Too many variables for our little minds to grapple with.
What if that if too many people believe in a god that one day one will be created as a result! Now that would be fucking chaos! Hehe

[FreeTony]

Chaos Theory is a result of solving differential equations. When you solve these equations, you still need a set of starting conditions. In a chaotic system, a very similar set of starting conditions can result in very different results.

If you remember from basic school maths, when you integrate 2x you get x^2 plus a constant. This constant is an initial starting condition.

Example 1: A non-chaotic system - an accelerating car
If two cars accelerate at a uniform rates, but one starts at 40mph and one at 41mph, the results will be fairly similar.

Example 2: An analogy of a chaotic system - marbles on a hill
Think of a marble on top of a uniform frictionless hill. If you drop two marbles almost at the very top of the hill, one will go in a completely different direction to another.

Weather has a set of chaotic non-linear differential equations. The reason forecasting is difficult is that the errors in initial measurement will results in a very different result after many iterations. If we had perfect measurements of the state of the atmosphere, and infinitely powerful computers forecasting could be almost perfect.


Chaotic systems are still totally deterministic, but the further into the future you try to predict them, the more accurate an initial observation you need.

[bennyboy]

Chaotic systems are still totally deterministic

Says who?

I think for this assertion to be true, you'd have to be able to determine whether events at the QM level can properly be variable given a single time.

[ShaMan]

WHAT HAPPENED!?

[Losty]

WHAT HAPPENED!?

[FreeTony]

Chaotic systems are still totally deterministic

Says who?

I think for this assertion to be true, you'd have to be able to determine whether events at the QM level can properly be variable given a single time.

I'm quite not sure what this sentence means, but given that in weather forecasting, there might be a weather station every 50km, that can measure temperature/pressure to the nearest degree/millibar, worrying about quantum effects to the order of 10^-34 is really of no consequence.

The mathematics of these systems is totally deterministic. If I know the initial starting conditions, I know the outcome. Not believing in chaos theory means not believing in differential equations and very basic laws of physics.

[bennyboy]

I'm quite not sure what this sentence means, but given that in weather forecasting, there might be a weather station every 50km, that can measure temperature/pressure to the nearest degree/millibar, worrying about quantum effects to the order of 10^-34 is really of no consequence.

Yes, it does. If the fundamental building blocks of the universe aren't truly deterministic, then determinism isn't really true except in the coursest sense. You might want to say that the sum of the particles in a fluid can be treated as a singular mathematical entity, but you'd be wrong-- specifically, you'd be wrong be an increasing degree as time progressed, until your predictions melted into statistical meaninglessness.

The mathematics of these systems is totally deterministic. If I know the initial starting conditions, I know the outcome. Not believing in chaos theory means not believing in differential equations and very basic laws of physics.

I'm not a big fan of being expected to "believe in" anything, especially a philosophical assertion (i.e. about determinism) masked as science. Science is not religion, and doesn't require my loyalty or willing belief. Now, show me that we CAN encapsulate initial starting conditions, and show that we CAN consistently predict the weather, and I'll start to believe what you're saying.

[Rhizomorph13]

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.