Chaos isn't

@Doubt doubt,

Doubt doubt;138904 wrote:

What seams like chaos to some can be perfectly understood to someone who knows the cause and effects of of respective "chaotic" event. whether and the butterfly effect are in no way chaotic. the butterfly effect is saying that a small cause can go through a cycle of cause and effect that eventually leads to a hurricane or anything else but it is all set in motion and following strict physical laws. things can only appear to be chaotic unless you believe that some effects occur without a cause. If you believe as i do that everything has a cause and effect then you don't have room for chaos.

The butterfly effect is completely bogus. There is absolutely no way that butterfly wings cause hurricanes. If that was the case then everything that moves would cause hurricanes. Thanks for the laugh though, because this paragraph was a good source for humor.

The thing with cause and effect. You would have to presume that a certain cause would have a consistent effect. However; no where that we look is there ever a cause that has a consistent effect.

Even people that work with explosives. Something like an explosion seems to be chaotic yet it can be fundamentally understood using physics and chemistry. Yet in practice there is still a level of uncertainty. People who deal with explosives know this and understand it well. They never imply that once the explosive is understood that its effect is certain. They can't know it, it is assumed only.

@Krumple,

Krumple;138901 wrote:

When it comes down to quantum physics this is what the reality is pointing to. That the best out come we can ever be certain of is a guess. Ironic and borderline absurd yet it is the reality as we currently understand it.

this is to be expected from a non science.

to be science something has to developed from the scientific method and be able to be communicated to others to develop further. quantum and all other mathematical physics are noncommunicable as the mathematics involved use many undefined terms. As defined, communication can only occur between people using the same dictionary to interpret what they hear. Mathematics used to prove quantum such as line, point object are undefined in the case of mathematics. they seam like proof when you think they say object and mean a physical object but they are not using the definition you find in the dictionary. they use the multiple definitions in the same papers without saying which is which. Particle physics as well is 100%garbage.

for instance it takes two points to make a line and two lines to make a point. A point is an event, location directions to an event but it is not the geometric dot that people assume when they hear point. It is all trash and makes people rich and everyone else stop looking for real answers. people think that science is so advanced but they just don't know the difference between science and technology. tech is attained through trial and error and doesn't need to be understood to be used. they use magnets for instance pretty well in tvs and radios and many many things but there is not a scientist in the world that can tell you how a magnet does what it does or what light is.

---------- Post added 03-12-2010 at 06:19 AM ----------

Krumple;138910 wrote:

The butterfly effect is completely bogus. There is absolutely no way that butterfly wings cause hurricanes. If that was the case then everything that moves would cause hurricanes. Thanks for the laugh though, because this paragraph was a good source for humor.

The thing with cause and effect. You would have to presume that a certain cause would have a consistent effect. However; no where that we look is there ever a cause that has a consistent effect.

Even people that work with explosives. Something like an explosion seems to be chaotic yet it can be fundamentally understood using physics and chemistry. Yet in practice there is still a level of uncertainty. People who deal with explosives know this and understand it well. They never imply that once the explosive is understood that its effect is certain. They can't know it, it is assumed only.

I dont know enough to know what a 100 or 100000000000 links of causation stemming from whatever caused a butterfly to flap his wings in someone elses analogy can cause but i do know if you think its impossible you lack the mind of a philosopher. its not stated that a butterfly has caused anything but that it could and nobody could know what the unfathomable amount of flapped butterfly wings in all of time have done.

put it this way. butterfly flaps its wings and a dog sees it out of the corner of its eye. it chases it and falls down a hidden well. it barks and barks and a little girl hears it and looks for it and falls down the well after it. next thing you know little Jessica Mclure is all over the news being rescued.
point is little things add up and you can not without a perfect understanding of the laws of nature know what causes what.

edit. did you seriously think that the butterfly effect meant that butterflys are literally the cause of all hurricanes lol?

@Doubt doubt,

Doubt doubt;138912 wrote:

this is to be expected from a non science.

to be science something has to developed from the scientific method and be able to be communicated to others to develop further. quantum and all other mathematical physics are noncommunicable as the mathematics involved use many undefined terms.

There are defined terms in quantum physics. But you are right in a sense a lot of it is just theoretical. I am not saying it is solid or useful information yet. I am saying what is being discovered in quantum mechanics is that what we perceive to be true is being challenged by these theories.

Doubt doubt;138912 wrote:

they use magnets for instance pretty well in tvs and radios and many many things but there is not a scientist in the world that can tell you how a magnet does what it does or what light is.

What are you talking about, we know what magnetism is and we know what light is. There are equations for both. We can make predictions for both and provide a level of certainty in behavior of both. Other wise how do you suppose we use them in technology? By just plopping it in? No, that is silly, we don't just guess, "Hey you know what might make this thing work? A magnet." It doesn't work like that. If you think it does then can I laugh without insulting you?

Doubt doubt;138912 wrote:

I dont know enough to know what a 100 or 100000000000 links of causation stemming from whatever caused a butterfly to flap his wings in someone elses analogy can cause but i do know if you think its impossible you lack the mind of a philosopher. its not stated that a butterfly has caused anything but that it could and nobody could know what the unfathomable amount of flapped butterfly wings in all of time have done.

But this was my point to begin with. That nothing can be certain with absolute certainty.

Doubt doubt;138912 wrote:

put it this way. butterfly flaps its wings and a dog sees it out of the corner of its eye. it chases it and falls down a hidden well. it barks and barks and a little girl hears it and looks for it and falls down the well after it. next thing you know little Jessica Mclure is all over the news being rescued.
point is little things add up and you can not without a perfect understanding of the laws of nature know what causes what.

You are talking about causality only from a past tense perspective. Because what if I asked you, "Does every little girl who hears a dog barking from a hole goes and investigates it?" You might try to claim that they all do but that is not honest. Not every little girl would go investigate. Not every dog would chase the butterfly and not every dog would fall into the hole. You can't talk about cause and effect if it is not certain. However; you can talk about cause and effect after an event happens, by saying oh this causes this and that happened because this was here. That only works after the fact not before it.

For cause and effect to be a fundamental truth, you should be able to make predictions of causality, but you can't. If we could, the world would be incredibly safe and far less people would die from accidents.

Doubt doubt;138912 wrote:

edit. did you seriously think that the butterfly effect meant that butterflys are literally the cause of all hurricanes lol?

Well thanks for making me laugh again because I assumed that you actually meant it that way. But as I pointed out above, your cause and effect is an after result not a fore thought.

Show me one thing that you can always predict using cause and effect. I don't mean something silly like tossing a rock up in the air and letting it fall back to the ground and calling that cause and effect proof. It would have to be a general prescribed example. Like you could toss a rock up and it not come back down because someone grabbed it from above. That proves that the cause and effect element of a rock tossed in the air does not always come back down.

So show me a statical analysis that shows that little girls always follow dog barking from holes. Then ill believe in cause and effect.

@Krumple,

Krumple;138918 wrote:

What are you talking about, we know what magnetism is and we know what light is. There are equations for both. We can make predictions for both and provide a level of certainty in behavior of both. Other wise how do you suppose we use them in technology? By just plopping it in? No, that is silly, we don't just guess, "Hey you know what might make this thing work? A magnet." It doesn't work like that. If you think it does then can I laugh without insulting you?

tech is trial and error and in no way means we understand or can explain why it works. yes it is often the add a magnet and see what happens approach. you are absolutely wrong about anyone knowing what magnetism and light are. you need a little doubt in your life. just because someone calls something science doesnt make it so. science explains~quantum describes.

quantum says light is a wave and a particle but never both at the same time. the only reason they even say this is because one or the other cant explain how light reacts in every circumstance so instead of starting over as the scientific method requires the add to the hypothesis mid stream.the light predictions are descriptions of what light does ant thats not science. science explains why and how it does what it does and nobody can. also the predictions you speak off out date quantum by along time so they dont get that little credit. no explanation for light that follows the scientific method has ever been show.

as for magnetism quantum has 4 choices to choose from domains particals charges or fields. take your pick but they are all atempts to describe what happens which is not the same as saying how and why it happens which would be science. a scientific explanation to why and how magnets do what they do that follows the guidelines of the scientific method has never been shown.

You are talking about causality only from a past tense perspective. Because what if I asked you, "Does every little girl who hears a dog barking from a hole goes and investigates it?" You might try to claim that they all do but that is not honest. Not every little girl would go investigate. Not every dog would chase the butterfly and not every dog would fall into the hole. You can't talk about cause and effect if it is not certain. However; you can talk about cause and effect after an event happens, by saying oh this causes this and that happened because this was here. That only works after the fact not before it.

For cause and effect to be a fundamental truth, you should be able to make predictions of causality, but you can't. If we could, the world would be incredibly safe and far less people would die from accidents.

LOL ok change a butterfly flapped its wings to a butterfly will flap its wings and your in the future.

every girl?? of course not but its my thought experement so i get to tell the story. i could make them up forever and it wouldnt change the fact that the important part is things cause things and without knowing every modifier and law governing them you cant make a prediction with 100% certainty but you could if you had the right info.

Well thanks for making me laugh again because I assumed that you actually meant it that way. But as I pointed out above, your cause and effect is an after result not a fore thought.

Show me one thing that you can always predict using cause and effect. I don't mean something silly like tossing a rock up in the air and letting it fall back to the ground and calling that cause and effect proof. It would have to be a general prescribed example. Like you could toss a rock up and it not come back down because someone grabbed it from above. That proves that the cause and effect element of a rock tossed in the air does not always come back down.

So show me a statical analysis that shows that little girls always follow dog barking from holes. Then ill believe in cause and effect.

she doesnt have to follow it every time. i wasnt even talking about predictions. you are arguing in the wrong context. it is an analogy for the fact that any cause can escalate to a big effect. you have been wrong across the board. i dont want you or anyone to get the wrong idea about me. if i sound mad or like im being smart its only because you "laughed" at things that are correct and spout off with complete nonsense. if you wanted to learn something or at least acted like you had a liberal bone in your body this would go much differently.

@Doubt doubt,

Doubt doubt;138925 wrote:

she doesnt have to follow it every time. i wasnt even talking about predictions. you are arguing in the wrong context. it is an analogy for the fact that any cause can escalate to a big effect. you have been wrong across the board. i dont want you or anyone to get the wrong idea about me. if i sound mad or like im being smart its only because you "laughed" at things that are correct and spout off with complete nonsense. if you wanted to learn something or at least acted like you had a liberal bone in your body this would go much differently.

I am open to your theory. I am saying, you are talking without providing any substantial parallel evidence. I know you were using a thought experiment, I am saying your thought experiment is flawed because it does not match with reality. You are claiming that cause and effect is a substantial thing and I am asking how is it substantial when you can't make any predictions with it. I acknowledge the fact that cause and effect only works after the event has happened but never before it occurs.

That isn't cause and effect. It is just a causal relationship and that is it. Cause and effect as you are presenting it is as if something can occur in a series of ways that escalates into something huge. I am saying it doesn't happen that way.

@Krumple,

Krumple;138926 wrote:

I am open to your theory. I am saying, you are talking without providing any substantial parallel evidence. I know you were using a thought experiment, I am saying your thought experiment is flawed because it does not match with reality. You are claiming that cause and effect is a substantial thing and I am asking how is it substantial when you can't make any predictions with it. I acknowledge the fact that cause and effect only works after the event has happened but never before it occurs.

That isn't cause and effect. It is just a causal relationship and that is it. Cause and effect as you are presenting it is as if something can occur in a series of ways that escalates into something huge. I am saying it doesn't happen that way.

Nothing was said about prediction. butterfly effect theory has nothing to do with prediction. It is solely about grasping how any cause can lead to an effect that causes something and so on forever. it doesnt stop at the hurricane the hurricane causes uncountable causes and subsequent effects and so on so that the effects of the butterflys flap go on infinitely or until everything ceases to exist. the real question is what caused the butterfly to flap its wings and what caused that.

If you knew everything as if you where a god you could see the butterfly flap its wings and predict the future but thats not what we where talking about. ill edit in how this started in a sec. i forget already lol

Krumple;138910 wrote:

The butterfly effect is completely bogus. There is absolutely no way that butterfly wings cause hurricanes. If that was the case then everything that moves would cause hurricanes. Thanks for the laugh though, because this paragraph was a good source for humor.

The thing with cause and effect. You would have to presume that a certain cause would have a consistent effect. However; no where that we look is there ever a cause that has a consistent effect.

Even people that work with explosives. Something like an explosion seems to be chaotic yet it can be fundamentally understood using physics and chemistry. Yet in practice there is still a level of uncertainty. People who deal with explosives know this and understand it well. They never imply that once the explosive is understood that its effect is certain. They can't know it, it is assumed only.

yea see no predictions yet thats your focus. as for the explosives well id say thats because you couldnt make all the explosives the exact same so of course they will be different. if they where exactly the same they would act the same id imagine. good night though. its been fun and thanks for the debate. thats exactly why i came here. ill think this over and adjust my world view accordingly. thanks

@sometime sun,

i'm curious as to weather chaos is relative to the observer or not, chaos could appear differently according to the perspective, and the abilities of the observer

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;138462 wrote:

Had this question elsewhere tonight i think it 'deserves' some time;

Is chaos anything but that which it isn't?

Would you please first explain what the question means?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;139243 wrote:

Would you please first explain what the question means?

Is chaos chaos or is chaos order. Order that just appears chaotic to the observer due to their lack of understanding of what they are seeing.

It reduces to cause and effect and what to label something that appears random due to a lack of understanding of what is occurring. actualy random is only the best word i can think of because in the chaos theory sense of the word chaos, chaos is not so much random as it is the ability for nothing to invent something new and random seams like a probability of one of so many things happening.

I dont really believe in random anything. like people always use the dice analogy for random but in truth the side it will land on is all dependent on how the die leaves your hand and will do the same thing every time if you could "roll" it the same every time.

@Doubt doubt,

Doubt doubt;139257 wrote:

Is chaos chaos or is chaos order. Order that just appears chaotic to the observer due to their lack of understanding of what they are seeing.

Is that really what the question means? How did you guess?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;139287 wrote:

Is that really what the question means? How did you guess?

I would answer if i thought you where serious lol.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;138654 wrote:

Yes i think so also.

Religions chaos, sciences chaos, general chaos.
chaos; dict; complete confusion; utter disorder.
2 physics a state of disorder and irregularity that is an intermediate stage between highly ordered motion and entirely random motion. From Greek khaos.

Is chaos the opposite of order?
Was order once chaos?

Think about that word 'order' even in science we use the term 'order', what does 'order' mean? Order could easily mean controled or contolable.
So whos pulling the strings?
Did we have to tie or untie to be ordered?

That which isn't, yes and no,
no because that which isn't is nothingness it isn't. It does not. It can not. It is not.
yes because chaos is that which isn't everything anyhting but not nothing because chaos is still something is still chaos.
Chaos is the start of something, the start of everything possibly?
So chaos is the closest 'thing' there is to nothing.
yes in what you say because nothing can exist in chaos,
chaos can not exist but still is something,
chaos does not hold nor is held by existance and yet is not a nothing?

Do you see? because my glasses just went blurry and i need to clean my lenses.

How can something not be a nothing when it cannot exist?
Is there such that can survive outside of existance?

I'm sticking with your first conclusion - Occum's Razor -- the simpliest answer is likely the correct one :a-thought:

All the rest of that, not just your post but the entire thread, is nonsensical -- or "Just because you do not understand the cause and effect does not mean there is no cause and effect."

Lost1

@Lost1 phil,

Lost1;139297 wrote:

I'm sticking with your first conclusion - Occum's Razor -- the simpliest answer is likely the correct one :a-thought:

All the rest of that, not just your post but the entire thread, is nonsensical -- or "Just because you do not understand the cause and effect does not mean there is no cause and effect."

Lost1

Yes just as the simplest answer is often the easiest and quickest.

So then i have created chaos?

Can chaos be qualified, quantified, questioned without the need for the total denial of its existance, something can actually be completely chaotic?
Chaos can ever even be? anything other than that which it isn't or just cant be?

(not the best post to be sure but still holds much, take your time please, dont rush the world you will never catch up anyway, i cannot speak for the rest of the thread but i think it has been rather successful)

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 11:17 AM ----------

kennethamy;139243 wrote:

Would you please first explain what the question means?

If you really have no idea, make something up.
Make believe chaos for me, please kennethamy use your chaos and invent it.
Invent the chaos.
Chaos the invent.

Just dont invite it to stay.

(You had to ask didn't you, look at the above statement a couple of times before you disagree, i will not be responsible for all the work of others, sorry i just cant, i'm still working on it myself)

Is chaos anything but that which it isn't?

Perhaps it can be expanded? no this is a retraction, an un-necessary or unwarranted shrinking and shirking of my responsibility, perhaps i shouldn't retract? perhaps i should not be 'irresponsible'? but i do this for you because i slightly fear your dismissal, why? i have not the slightest fathom;
(oh yes i do, slightly)

Is chaos anything but that which it cant?

@Doubt doubt,

Doubt doubt;139257 wrote:

Is chaos chaos or is chaos order. Order that just appears chaotic to the observer due to their lack of understanding of what they are seeing.

It reduces to cause and effect and what to label something that appears random due to a lack of understanding of what is occurring. actualy random is only the best word i can think of because in the chaos theory sense of the word chaos, chaos is not so much random as it is the ability for nothing to invent something new and random seams like a probability of one of so many things happening.

I dont really believe in random anything. like people always use the dice analogy for random but in truth the side it will land on is all dependent on how the die leaves your hand and will do the same thing every time if you could "roll" it the same every time.

Great response and probably one of my favorite responses from you. Despite the fact that I like the response there are other factors involved besides just the way the die leaves your hand. I assume that you understood that too. However; even though I understand what you mean when you say there is no randomness here, you are only looking at the surface appearance of the event called throwing a die.

On the subatomic level the die itself is not a static object. It has an incredible amount of energy and the particles are not static. If you could release the energy that makes up the die it could destroy the planet but there is no easy way to release the energy of the die. It is on this level where the randomness begins and it evades all of our predictions persistently.

So sure, if you could release the die at the same height every time and the die hits the surface in exactly the same spot and angle every time, then by all means you could make predictions on the result. However on the subatomic level if you try to do this, it doesn't work.

@Krumple,

Krumple;139548 wrote:

Great response and probably one of my favorite responses from you. Despite the fact that I like the response there are other factors involved besides just the way the die leaves your hand. I assume that you understood that too. However; even though I understand what you mean when you say there is no randomness here, you are only looking at the surface appearance of the event called throwing a die.

On the subatomic level the die itself is not a static object. It has an incredible amount of energy and the particles are not static. If you could release the energy that makes up the die it could destroy the planet but there is no easy way to release the energy of the die. It is on this level where the randomness begins and it evades all of our predictions persistently.

So sure, if you could release the die at the same height every time and the die hits the surface in exactly the same spot and angle every time, then by all means you could make predictions on the result. However on the subatomic level if you try to do this, it doesn't work.

Chaos isn't in our hands.
In our hands chaos isn't.
(Hands isn't in our chaos.)
(Isn't in our chaos hands.)
(do the rest yourself)

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;139522 wrote:

Yes just as the simplest answer is often the easiest and quickest.

So then i have created chaos?

For yourself - possibly, for others, some most assuredly, chaos that none of man can make sense of, doubful.

sometime sun;139522 wrote:

Can chaos be qualified, quantified, questioned without the need for the total denial of its existance, something can actually be completely chaotic?

Repeat my above response here.

sometime sun;139522 wrote:

Chaos can ever even be? anything other than that which it isn't or just cant be?

Just a rewording of your original question.
Lost1

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 11:17 AM ----------

@Krumple,

Krumple;139548 wrote:

On the subatomic level the die itself is not a static object. It has an incredible amount of energy and the particles are not static. If you could release the energy that makes up the die it could destroy the planet but there is no easy way to release the energy of the die. It is on this level where the randomness begins and it evades all of our predictions persistently.

So sure, if you could release the die at the same height every time and the die hits the surface in exactly the same spot and angle every time, then by all means you could make predictions on the result. However on the subatomic level if you try to do this, it doesn't work.

If you or anyone could explain the subatomic level with rigor and defined terms i would agree. The problem is that all these theorys that state that logic and rational thought dont work all the time are not based on fact but come down to mathematics done with undefined interchangeable terms. If you need to use a number line, point(mathematical point), line(mathematical line) or event(mathematical event) to explain something it is nonsensical and you are only attempting to make a Fallacious argument via reifying the abstract into a physical object.

Reifying: an abstract thing is talked about as if it were a physical object existing in shape and location.

The biggest thing holding back the progression of man kind is this very act. The greatest minds of generations have accomplished nothing more than abstractions that no mater what Relativists, string theorists or quantum mechanics say is absolutely bullshit. If you can be the first human to even come up with a theory on how a particle world could account for PULL the world would be impressed. Nothing resulting in from mathematical physics is anything but equations on paper, only possible with use of interchangeable terms that can never have anything to do with the static world we appear to live in or be anything more that nonsensical theorys that by definition could never become scientific facts. How realistic can something be when it takes 5 pages of mathematics to explain and the explanation evokes the point and line 100 times and without differentiating between if in this or that equation a point is one end of a line or the intersection of two lines or one of the 10 other definitions used in the same paper interchangeably.

So once again.
Reifying: an abstract thing is talked about as if it were a physical object existing in shape and location.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;139565 wrote:

Chaos isn't in our hands.
In our hands chaos isn't.
(Hands isn't in our chaos.)
(Isn't in our chaos hands.)
(do the rest yourself)

a sip a sip
a sip from that cup
so tempting
so lovely
oh so divine

@Krumple,

Krumple;138901 wrote:

When it comes down to quantum physics this is what the reality is pointing to. That the best out come we can ever be certain of is a guess. Ironic and borderline absurd yet it is the reality as we currently understand it.

Here in lies the problem: In science a Line is a simple two dimensional geometrical illustration on an object. In science a point is a two dimensional dot on an object.

In mathematics/mathematical physics the official definition of point and line is that they are undefined. By definition something can only communicate something to something else if and only if they are translating with the same dictionary. If something can not be communicated it can not be scientific.

Now that could end it and get a few smart fellas working towards something constructive but here is were it gets really bad. Mathematics takes concepts and labels them all point or a line on purpose to make it seem like it is possible for all their points and lines to be physical objects. So now that they have connected points and lines to physical objects they make this equation were a point is the intersection of two lines and that equation were a line is two points or were a line is an infinite number of points which may or may not be contained between two points in which an infinite number of points could be contained between any of the two points constituting the line.
With all these definitions being used interchangeably does it seem like some of these points could be correct on paper but not line up in any sense with physical objects? Is there not a physical law to how small something can be? Point is if you took one of the interchangeably definitions of line and said the distance between two points is called the werefuckedius you would have to use it consistantly. If you did that for the entire collection of multi-defined presently interchangeable abstract terms assumed by mathematicians to correlate with the static objective, everything they do stops working all together. It sucks to say but sunk cost effect and conformation bias effect foreshadows that it is all but impossible to admit they have wasted time and means that people will believe it even if they dont and teach it to a new generation who will be even further sunken in sunk cost. I swear it should be mandatory to all humans to learn how to think critically. Hell just understanding sunk cost effect and conformation bias changes everyone in the same way people speak of an acid trip. "Your never the same man."

@Doubt doubt,

Doubt doubt;139663 wrote:

Here in lies the problem: In science a Line is a simple two dimensional geometrical illustration on an object. In science a point is a two dimensional dot on an object.

In mathematics/mathematical physics the official definition of point and line is that they are undefined. By definition something can only communicate something to something else if and only if they are translating with the same dictionary. If something can not be communicated it can not be scientific.

If you're telling us that Euclidean geometry is outdated, apparently a few folks beat you to that.. like Einstein.

Science is theory and observation. It uses models. The models change over time. One imagines that we're not at the end of the parade of models, especially considering the state of physics at this point.

Technology does involve trial and error. However the antenna was a result of antenna theory. TV's only have magnets in them when they're turned on, by the way... electromagnets. And it is understood that the theory of electromagnetism is in flux (I'm so funny.)

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know