Determinism and the butterfly effect

@click here,

click here wrote:

Did you read the presupposition stated at the beginning of this thread? We are looking at the relationship between determinism and chaos theory.

So what are you saying i have not obeyed the rules of debate on such an academic question? The butterfly flapping his wings is supposed to instill into the debate some kind of magical expression of cause and effect..There is point of where credibility becomes so absolutely silly it has to revised into a more realistic example. I never ever accept what is thrown at me just because it is an historic example of philosophical debate..

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

Jazzman wrote:

If nobody mentioned it yet: Google for "Determined chaos", that's the scientific keyword for what you mean - small influences on a system cause great changes.

EDIT: "Determined chaos" doesn't seem to be so common in english, my mistake..."chaos theory" might be more useful. The bottom line: There are theoretical physical systems that are determined but doesn't follow a rational waveform.

Certain events in a supposed chaotic arena can have effects well beyond their initial influence.Transistors are good examples. A controller of men in life can be a very good example.Napoleon, Hitler, initially came about by the chaos of their times.The chaos does it beg for guidance by its lack of direction? What im trying to say when there is power with no directive the smallest determined influence outweighs its true strength.I can not for the life of me see a swirling wind , breeze,gust being influenced by one little butterfly except in the mind of musing philosopher..I might add your English is probably better than mine..Xris

@xris,

xris wrote:

So what are you saying i have not obeyed the rules of debate on such an academic question? The butterfly flapping his wings is supposed to instill into the debate some kind of magical expression of cause and effect..There is point of where credibility becomes so absolutely silly it has to revised into a more realistic example. I never ever accept what is thrown at me just because it is an historic example of philosophical debate..

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

Certain events in a supposed chaotic arena can have effects well beyond their initial influence.Transistors are good examples. A controller of men in life can be a very good example.Napoleon, Hitler, initially came about by the chaos of their times.The chaos does it beg for guidance by its lack of direction? What im trying to say when there is power with no directive the smallest determined influence outweighs its true strength.I can not for the life of me see a swirling wind , breeze,gust being influenced by one little butterfly except in the mind of musing philosopher..I might add your English is probably better than mine..Xris

xris you should not apologise for your English it is much better than the other 95% below your grasp of the lingo

I agree I think a thread should go where it wants to go, as new ideas are constantly introduced by this

I am not an authority on this forum and that is just my view on the matter

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

xris you should not apologise for your English it is much better than the other 95% below your grasp of the lingo

I agree I think a thread should go where it wants to go, as new ideas are constantly introduced by this

I am not an authority on this forum and that is just my view on the matter

Well thanks Alan,im determined if nothing else..

@xris,

xris wrote:

Well thanks Alan,im determined if nothing else..

xrix If they bring me the actual tiny Butterfield that caused a cyclone or tornado on the other side of the world from where if first flapped its very dangerous little wings, then and only then will my little doggy ears rise up like radar antennas and only then will I worry about it or take even the minutest interest in what is an unprovable theory, yes it is just a theory no one has proved it and no one can ever prove it. :bigsmile:

If we take this theory to the limit, then why cant the little butterfly somewhere in China, by flapping its tiny wings, bring down and destroy the whole universe , why not?, we just need to extrapolate the theory don't we xris ? :perplexed:

@Alan McDougall,

xris wrote:

So what are you saying i have not obeyed the rules of debate on such an academic question? The butterfly flapping his wings is supposed to instill into the debate some kind of magical expression of cause and effect..There is point of where credibility becomes so absolutely silly it has to revised into a more realistic example. I never ever accept what is thrown at me just because it is an historic example of philosophical debate..on,

Alan McDougall wrote:

xrix If they bring me the actual tiny Butterfield that caused a cyclone or tornado on the other side of the world from where if first flapped its very dangerous little wings, then and only then will my little doggy ears rise up like radar antennas and only then will I worry about it or take even the minutest interest in what is an unprovable theory, yes it is just a theory no one has proved it and no one can ever prove it. :bigsmile:

If we take this theory to the limit, then why cant the little butterfly somewhere in China, by flapping its tiny wings, bring down and destroy the whole universe , why not?, we just need to extrapolate the theory don't we xris ? :perplexed:

I think both of you do not understand the theory. First of all the reason that it is considered a theory is because it relies on a materialistic universe more or less. Though if you choose to accept a materialistic universe then you start to get into hot water by rejecting chaos theory.

Now to explain the theory because it would seem that you guys have got the concept wrong. It is not the butterflies flapping wings that somehow generate a force that over time slowly builds on its own accord to finally cause a hurricane. What the theory states is that the butterflies wings are one aspect in a very large amount of variables and when you include the butterflies flaps into the equation you could find that the one extra flap was all the tornado needed to get started.

TO XRIS:

You are discounting this "theory" because you find it silly not because you have a counter argument. That is an awful way to debate. Not only are you rejecting it on zero grounds but you choose to not offer another theory in its place.

Let me tell you what you are rejecting by rejecting chaos theory.

You seem to think for some reason that the butterflies flaps have no significance at all. Which is a blatant rejection of the law of conservation of energy which states that "the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant" meaning that energy can not be created nor destroyed.

The butterfly uses energy that it got from food which came from past energy sources to power its wing movement. The wing movement imparts a force on the air molecules around it and according to newtons third law those air molecules will also move so they have received kinetic energy from a direct transfer of the wings. Those air molecules must transfer that energy somewhere and to something and will continue to transfer for eternity as energy is not created nor destroyed only transferred.
The energy that initially was transferred to the air by the butterfly will exist in other forms of energy forever.

Now another example to further the argument. For this example we have a libra type scale that is extremely accurate. On the scale is nothing on either side and it is completely balanced. If you put a single molecule of water on the right side of the scale it will drop to show you that it is unbalanced. (remember we are speaking of a very sensitive scale)

So it can be seen that one single molecule can a difference.

What does this all mean? Lets say 2000 years after the butterflies flap we have all variables needed to created a tornado except for the position of one air molecule. Along comes the energy (in some form), originally from the butterfly, and it knocks that one air molecule into place. BAM! You have a tornado. If it was not for the butterfly the tornado would never had started.

This is not philosophical musing this is straight up science. Stop rejecting it as frivolous with no reasons. Argue against the science that I have placed forth.

@click here,

The basic premise in chaos theory is that an essentially deterministic system of variables can in practice produce an indeterministic outcome depending on minute variations in the initial condition of the system.

This indeterminism is not fundamental but might as well be because the small differences in initial conditions are not detectable. And may never be detectable by any imaginable means.
They can be made randomly small, making them smaller merely means the time interval between cause and effect becomes longer, but in a linear fashion. Whereas the outwards expansion of the effect is non-linear.

You can further reduce the cause of the flapping of the butterflies wings to the firing of a single neuron in its brain. Maybe even to the status of a single subatomic particle inside that neuron.

There is no magic about it. It is just a matter of mathematics and physics.
Just think of oscillating processes.
If you shift a high frequency sine wave by a minute distance you can change the value from 0 to 1. It just depends on the timing of the sample.

And if you say you have never actually seen a butterfly cause a storm you are right. Because fundamentally it is impossible to detect such a phenomenon. If you could, determinism would be restored.

@sarek,

I understand the theory and what is proposes , i accept the theory in principle but in practice its absolutely ridiculous in the extreme..We could stretch this theory further and further into the realms of stupidity, thinking about a butterflies wings flapping! will that cause an event well beyond the initial imagery? The neurons firing :perplexed:Its down to that little appreciated energetic influence common sense...

@xris,

xris wrote:

I understand the theory and what is proposes , i accept the theory in principle but in practice its absolutely ridiculous in the extreme..We could stretch this theory further and further into the realms of stupidity, thinking about a butterflies wings flapping! will that cause an event well beyond the initial imagery? The neurons firing :perplexed:Its down to that little appreciated energetic influence common sense...

Are you trying to use 'common sense' to disprove something? When is using 'common sense' a way to disprove something? Especially something based on math and science. If you disagree, start by giving reasons why.

@click here,

click here wrote:

Are you trying to use 'common sense' to disprove something? When is using 'common sense' a way to disprove something? Especially something based on math and science. If you disagree, start by giving reasons why.

I think Ive given enough reasons to say its a proposal that should be put back on the shelf with the books on "silly facts that are not to be considered"...Give me the exact occasion when you think this effect may take place..The location, the weather conditions and the region it might take place..The worlds your oyster or your butterfly..

@xris,

xris wrote:

I think Ive given enough reasons to say its a proposal that should be put back on the shelf with the books on "silly facts that are not to be considered"...Give me the exact occasion when you think this effect may take place..The location, the weather conditions and the region it might take place..The worlds your oyster or your butterfly..

If you should choose to put it on the shelf what do you support in its place?

@click here,

click here wrote:

If you should choose to put it on the shelf what do you support in its place?

I have also given examples of chaotic events that can be determined by a controlling influence that are more reasonable in their expectations.
I can imagine one more stone or one more snow flake creating an avalanche but a butterfly on the edge of an atmospheric depression tipping the balance into a even a breeze is beyond comprehension..

@xris,

Hey guys

Can anything be really really determined with a hundred percent accuracy, even into the next hour of next day, or the very next moment?

Isaac Newton said if he knew the position of ever object in relation to every other object in the ssky, he would be able to determine where they will be in relation to one another a day later, a month or a thousand years later with great accuracy

We know on a much smaller scale this was/is done by astronomers, even astronomers of long past. Thus we accurately know the seasons, the phases of the moon, the eclipse of the sun and the moon and the moon and the sun etc. We can calculate exactly where a planet or a star will be in the night sky in millions of years etc.

A mathematician his name escapes me at the moment, said on a TV interview said if he were to have a colossal computer working at almost infinite speed , with the exact correct mathematic formulae, the computer could in calculate the exact position of the smallest fundamental particle in the universe in relation to all the other infinities of fundamental particles in the universe, this immense Godlike computer, maybe a quantum computer could know everything that will happen to every particle in the universe, right up to its final demise, whatever that might be

Computer utters these famous words "Let there be ligh"t and there was light

Before GPS the ships that sailed the high seas depended on the astronomers forecast, by the huge book supplied to them yearly, giving the exact position of the sun at a specific time in the day, and exact position of the stars at night to navigate. Without this aid, they would meander all over the oceans not knowing exactly where they were.

Peace in the universe

@Alan McDougall,

xris wrote:

I have also given examples of chaotic events that can be determined by a controlling influence that are more reasonable in their expectations.
I can imagine one more stone or one more snow flake creating an avalanche but a butterfly on the edge of an atmospheric depression tipping the balance into a even a breeze is beyond comprehension..

Why is it beyond comprehension?

Do you believe that if ALL variables could be known and put into one big computer that you could determine all future events?

Alan McDougall wrote:

Hey guys

Can anything be really really determined with a hundred percent accuracy, even into the next hour of next day, or the very next moment?

Absolutely so long as you subcribe to a materialistic world that follows all laws of science that we know. i.e. if you believe in souls (as non material objects) then you would choose not to except this view.

@click here,

Keep to reality not these semantics..Where is your butterfly? where doth it fly and change the course of history ..speak up..

@xris,

xris wrote:

Keep to reality not these semantics..Where is your butterfly? where doth it fly and change the course of history ..speak up..

Why are you dodging the question? Can you just answer it with a simple yes or no? If you wish to explain your yes or no by all means do so but please stop playing around.

This is reality buddy.

Q1. Do you agree that a physicist can calculate the trajectory of a baseball thrown into the air?

If you say yes, which I assume you will, then we need to know why he can make such a calculation. We know that the balls movement will follow the laws of science and we have variables that we can use to put into a mathematical formula to come to a conclusive answer.

So what would it take for a physicist to calculate many more objects interacting? All variables associated with the calculation. For example, billiard balls ricocheting off each other. A physicist can calculate at what angle a ball needs to be hit to sink another ball etc...

Which leads me to question 2.

Q2. Do you agree that a physicist could calculate the effects of a butterflies flaps and extrapolate the effects infinitely? (assuming he had all data to make such a calculation)

@click here,

click here wrote:

Why are you dodging the question? Can you just answer it with a simple yes or no? If you wish to explain your yes or no by all means do so but please stop playing around.

This is reality buddy.

Q1. Do you agree that a physicist can calculate the trajectory of a baseball thrown into the air?

If you say yes, which I assume you will, then we need to know why he can make such a calculation. We know that the balls movement will follow the laws of science and we have variables that we can use to put into a mathematical formula to come to a conclusive answer.

So what would it take for a physicist to calculate many more objects interacting? All variables associated with the calculation. For example, billiard balls ricocheting off each other. A physicist can calculate at what angle a ball needs to be hit to sink another ball etc...

Which leads me to question 2.

Q2. Do you agree that a physicist could calculate the effects of a butterflies flaps and extrapolate the effects infinitely? (assuming he had all data to make such a calculation)

I am ignoring the question?.I dont believe a butterfly could create a breeze is that sufficient? now you tell me how it could? Its not for me to prove it can, its for you prove it will under certain circumstances ,well explain those circumstances...PLEASE..Not a storm just a breeze ...

@xris,

xris wrote:

I am ignoring the question?.I dont believe a butterfly could create a breeze is that sufficient? now you tell me how it could? Its not for me to prove it can, its for you prove it will under certain circumstances ,well explain those circumstances...PLEASE..Not a storm just a breeze ...

Yes, a simple yes or no would be an answer to the question, that which you have yet to provide.

I think you are still misunderstanding chaos theory.

The butterfly does not on its own create a breeze. Let me give you a quick idea of how wind works. This is just what I learned in chem... There are areas of low pressure and high pressure in the atmosphere. High pressure means that if you were to take a sample of molecules of nitrogen in a cubic area you would notice that there are more molecules then there would be in a low pressure area. Air molecules want to separate themselves so they bounce off each other and more toward less dense areas. For example, when someone passes gas, if you are near by you may get quite a large sniff of it. That is because the odor molecules are very densely situated when they enter your nose your brain registers the odor because of the significant amount of odor molecules. So what happens to gas after a while? If you are outside then the odor molecules can quickly disperse and spread out, the lessly bunched they are the less obvious they are to smell. If you are in a very small unventilated room you could end up smelling them for a while. (of course you would not smell them forever as after a while you would have breathed them all in....)

So just as a fan moves air molecules towards your face a butterflies wing moves air molecules. The effect of the butterfly I will try to explain in comparison to a fan. If you point a small personal fan at a book that is standing up on its side and SLOWLY increase the speed of the movement of the air molecules (directly related to speed of fan)

Fan effectiveness is normally measured in CFM (cubic feet per minute) which is "how much volume in cubic feet pass by a stationary point in one minute". If we use an extremely exact tool to measure the CFM and increase in slow increments the effective 'speed' of the fan we would get to a point where a VERY small increase is all that is needed to tip over the book we are pointing the fan at. So small infact that that CFM could be generated by a butterfly, well along comes this butterfly and down goes the book with the combined help of the fan. The butterfly does not act alone, it acts with other variables. Though without the butterfly, and a constant fan speed, it simplictically breaks down to the book NEVER EVER falling over.

@click here,

click here wrote:

Yes, a simple yes or no would be an answer to the question, that which you have yet to provide.

I think you are still misunderstanding chaos theory.

The butterfly does not on its own create a breeze. Let me give you a quick idea of how wind works. This is just what I learned in chem... There are areas of low pressure and high pressure in the atmosphere. High pressure means that if you were to take a sample of molecules of nitrogen in a cubic area you would notice that there are more molecules then there would be in a low pressure area. Air molecules want to separate themselves so they bounce off each other and more toward less dense areas. For example, when someone passes gas, if you are near by you may get quite a large sniff of it. That is because the odor molecules are very densely situated when they enter your nose your brain registers the odor because of the significant amount of odor molecules. So what happens to gas after a while? If you are outside then the odor molecules can quickly disperse and spread out, the lessly bunched they are the less obvious they are to smell. If you are in a very small unventilated room you could end up smelling them for a while. (of course you would not smell them forever as after a while you would have breathed them all in....)

So just as a fan moves air molecules towards your face a butterflies wing moves air molecules. The effect of the butterfly I will try to explain in comparison to a fan. If you point a small personal fan at a book that is standing up on its side and SLOWLY increase the speed of the movement of the air molecules (directly related to speed of fan)

Fan effectiveness is normally measured in CFM (cubic feet per minute) which is "how much volume in cubic feet pass by a stationary point in one minute". If we use an extremely exact tool to measure the CFM and increase in slow increments the effective 'speed' of the fan we would get to a point where a VERY small increase is all that is needed to tip over the book we are pointing the fan at. So small infact that that CFM could be generated by a butterfly, well along comes this butterfly and down goes the book with the combined help of the fan. The butterfly does not act alone, it acts with other variables. Though without the butterfly, and a constant fan speed, it simplictically breaks down to the book NEVER EVER falling over.

This is your answer..ahh well i never did expect you to be able to convince yourself let alone me..We have a certain weather condition..a certain depression forming over the Atlantic as result of warm air rising in the Caribbean dragging in cold air from the south.It has the look of a storm forming into hurricane standards but will it???? Ahh we have a butterfly emerging from its chrysalis, its wings drying, lets hope it does not try to take off..The whole of South America awaits with baited breath..It flaps its wings in anticipation..oh no we have a storm , a hurricane..This is the scenario you could not bring yourself to use and i cant say I blame you..If i blow hard enough at just the right moment i might just be able to make the earth stop turning..is that correct toooo.

@xris,

xris wrote:

This is your answer..ahh well i never did expect you to be able to convince yourself let alone me..We have a certain weather condition..a certain depression forming over the Atlantic as result of warm air rising in the Caribbean dragging in cold air from the south.It has the look of a storm forming into hurricane standards but will it???? Ahh we have a butterfly emerging from its chrysalis, its wings drying, lets hope it does not try to take off..The whole of South America awaits with baited breath..It flaps its wings in anticipation..oh no we have a storm , a hurricane..This is the scenario you could not bring yourself to use and i cant say I blame you..If i blow hard enough at just the right moment i might just be able to make the earth stop turning..is that correct toooo.

I'm making the example simplistic so you understand the concept. Do you agree with the conclusion of my example. You wanna get somewhere, start there.

You want to get to the storm/butterfly emerging scenario, well so do I but you won't take that right off the bat so I'm giving you a simpler scenario.

So you except my conclusion about the book and the butterfly and the fan?

@xris,

click here

I repost this comment of mine for you to refute if you can?

If they bring me the actual tiny Butterfield that caused a cyclone or tornado on the other side of the world from where if first flapped its very dangerous little wings, then and only then will my little doggy ears rise up like radar antennas and only then will I worry about it or take even the minutest interest in what is an unprovable theory, yes it is just a theory no one has proved it and no one can ever prove it. :bigsmile:

If we take this theory to the limit, then why cant the little butterfly somewhere in China, by flapping its tiny wings, bring down and destroy the whole universe , why not?, we just need to extrapolate the theory don't we

Philosophy Forum

Determinism and the butterfly effect

Quick Links

My Account

able2know