Chaos theory doesn't really work. It only allows chaos among basically-identical states.
If a small effect can snowball, it was going to snowball anyway.
Mortals have many cognitive deficiencies. If a mortal sees one snowflake cause an avalanche, she thinks removing that snowflake will prevent the avalanche. "Ha ha! I caught it!"
Then the sound of her voice causes the avalanche. If she manages to stay quiet, a snowflake the next day causes the avalanche. The avalanche was so sensitive that it was going to happen regardless. A small event didn't [[cause]] a big event, a small event [triggers] a big event that has already been set up.
For a butterfly to knock down a domino and set up a domino effect, someone has to have already set up the dominos. Unless he also takes them down, with effort close to what it took to set them up, squishing one butterfly merely means it's the next butterfly that will knock them down.
The weather is chaotic because the weather largely doesn't matter. It will balance out. If through [[[chaos]]] it's a hot day here and a cold day there, it will also, later, cause a cold day here and a hot day there. And if it doesn't, it's because it wasn't chaos, it was another inevitable avalanche.
I mean, you can try to squish all the butterflies, but it's easier to take down the dominos.
Admittedly, when a bunch of hair-trigger avalanches set each other off in a chain, it can look spectacular. As in, it overwhelms the wetware RAM, consuming the space needed for logic or perspective.
Monday, August 4, 2025
Chaos Theory Too Orderly
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You might have misunderstood Chaos Theory? It was supposed to be about how a small difference in start condition of a process makes a large difference of the end state, which I'd guess means not that the process wasn't set up to happen, but that the direction change depending on the initial conditions. For example a lightning strikes another tree than usual because a tourist running from a bear sat on top, making it 10cm taller with his Head in a hat. There was going to be a lightning, but it could hit any other high point nearby. Because the tree was dead, and thus dry, and the lightning cloud didn't produce Rain, there happened a Forest fire. There was going to be a Forest fire, but still the outcome could be different. The poor bear, it didn't have to die, could feast on many more tourists.
Then you look at real-world examples, and the end state is not largely different.
If that bear dies, then another bear grows up eating what he would have eaten, thus the "large" difference is that the tourists that get et have different names.
Perhaps to make up for eating them later, tourism grew in the meantime, so more tourists get et. If they die earlier, they miss out on many years of tourism on account of being dead, so to add up to the same number of missed years, gotta eat more.
If a "large" difference is that one day has a high of 32F instead of 90F, it just means the opposite happens a week later.
Shuffling a deck of cards makes a "large" difference to which you pull first, but in the real world you ultimately end up playing every card in the deck regardless.
The dinosaurs were destined for extinction. A meteor - provided soyientists aren't being retarded as usual - merely pins down the timing.
If someone had clipped einstein with their car as a child, then it would be called hamilton's general relativity. It would have been delayed maybe a year or so. Check: calculus.
So to sum it up, the differences do not last and only really concern individual objects and creatures, not any general patterns or anything large-scale. It only makes a difference for that particular bear, and maybe the replacement bear who survived due to less competition, and some particular tourists. Is this Correct?
Post a Comment