This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Mods Please Lock
Return to board index
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If you took it as an insult, I apologize; it wasn't my intention.
I'm sorry I got mad at you. It's just that every time I bring something into a discussion someone always decides to revert to finger-pointing because 'HSR's some big hairy monster on a mission to destroy everyone's threads .'
To argue the term would be arguing semantics and really, that gets us nowhere.
I'm not arguing the term. I'm arguing the concept that is signified by the term. You could call it 'jdnfkdsjnf' for all I care; I'd still be arguing against it.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I guess the only question then is: Now that you know what definition of the term is being used, are you still going to argue against it?
http://www.wowhead.com/?forums&topic=137233.2#p1710557
It's the same thing I've been arguing from the very beginning. Nothing has changed.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm saying that fact that we cannot predict something has no bearing on whether it can be predicted or not. We're dumb animals, the universe is a complex machine -- to say something is inherently unpredictable because we can't predict it is an ignorant thing to do.
To say that it's predictable at a time when we have no means of predicting it is an ignorant thing to do. When we use certain things, like predictability, we would have to assume that it's with
our
tools and knowledge that we're basing these claims on; not something that we don't have.
Of course, you could always add to it by saying that "rendering long-term prediction impossible
with our current knowledge
", or something along those lines but I'm under the assumption, as are most, that that's implied.
Don't you realize how unscientific that is? Making a whole system around that fact we don't know something at the moment?
If you're going to make a system to describe an event, you shouldn't have to bring the observer into the equation. The even happens whether we're there to see it or not, whether we understand why it happened or not. Just because we can't see the 'why' does not mean we should just forget about it.
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kinesis
I guess wowhead is not where I should have come to wax philosophical. Adieu.
Post by
Adamsm
I guess wowhead is not where I should have come to wax philosophical. Adieu.
Nah, you just choose the wrong question heh.
Post by
Kinesis
I guess wowhead is not where I should have come to wax philosophical. Adieu.
Nah, you just choose the wrong question heh.
I didn't ask a question =\. I merely presented a popular idea and asked people what they thought of it. Wowhead's response was, well.... lacking.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm sorry my bachelor's in philosophy wasn't enough for you.
And I'm sorry it's taken this long for you to realize not everything has to be just because you believe it.
And I'm sorry you have yet to come up with a defense because I would have loved to have heard it and discussed it.
Post by
Squishalot
You were the first to start the debate on the name of the theory and Squishalot decided to jump on the bandwagon. ... You challenged the idea of the topic rather than give your opinion on the topic itself.
'Jump on the bandwagon'? I took the definition you prescribed, and showed it to be lacking. I detailed where Chaos Theory falls apart, because, as Hyper points out, it's simply saying "we as humans are incapable, therefore things appear to be random".
I then followed up by saying that Chaos Theory is 'true' by definition, but that it's meaningless, because its definition of 'chaos' can be applied to things that we don't see as chaotic.
If you see that as 'jumping on the bandwagon' of 'debating on the name of the theory', then that's your loss.
How can you challenge the idea of the topic without giving your opinion on it? And again, I said that the concept stinks. In fact, to quote myself:
chaos theory is a load of garbage..
Under a deterministic system, anything can be predicted, given sufficient processing power...
You still get a butterfly effect, but it's not 'chaos', it's 'complexity', as Hyper states, at least from a colloqiual point of view. It's worth noting that mathematically, doing the simplest thing, such as stirring a drink, is chaotic, without requiring such random, seemingly unconnected events to occur.
In this, I state:
1) I don't believe that Chaos Theory is all it's made out to be
2) There is no 'randomness' in Chaos Theory - it's a series of deterministic processes, meaning that any strange behaviour is simply the complicated system of life at work
3) The idea of Chaos Theory is meaningless when you think that something 'simple' is also chaotic.
Also:
A large event in your life is simply (or complex-ly) the consequent results of all of history.
There is no single butterfly in your life, and you are not a special snowflake.
4) The butterfly effect is Chaos Theory at work, but it's still meaningless. The city collapsing is the consequent result of all the billion butterflies in history that led events to get to that point, not just the one butterfly the kid was chasing in Africa. What if there wasn't a moose there? What if another butterfly was leading the moose there to be killed? What if a third butterfly was the one that caused the moose to be poisoned?
Nothing boils down to a single event. This is why the butterfly effect is in practice, a load of crap. The only time it's worth paying attention to is if you can go back in time and change something (for an example, read "A Sound of Thunder", by Ray Bradbury - not the film adaptation - this is the seminal example of the butterfly effect as taught at universities).
But, of course, changing the events of history is physically impossible, without skewing off into an alternate universe.
Have I made my opinion clear enough? The butterfly effect exists and Chaos Theory exists, but it has no relevant meaning.
I merely presented a popular idea and asked people what they thought of it. Wowhead's response was, well.... lacking.
We can either:
a) Agree with you - "Hey, it's cool"
b) Rubbish you - "You're a load of crap."
c) Disagree and explain why - "It's a load of crap, and see why I think so".
What else can we possibly think? I did (C). If that's not good enough for you, I don't know what you're expecting.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I was wondering when you were going to show up...it was getting kind of lonely with no one even remotely agreeing with me :(
Post by
Squishalot
Sorry, only woke up about half an hour ago :P Remember the time differences!
I'm actually going to be busy for most of today though, so I might not be online until your morning tomorrow. Sorry :( Feel free to disagree with my analysis / opinion though, but I can't see that I've said anything that's factually or philosophically incorrect. Point 4 is the key one - the idea that something's happened *solely because* of a single butterfly is a crap.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Sorry, only woke up about half an hour ago :P Remember the time differences!
I'm actually going to be busy for most of today though, so I might not be online until your morning tomorrow. Sorry :( Feel free to disagree with my analysis / opinion though, but I can't see that I've said anything that's factually or philosophically incorrect. Point 4 is the key one - the idea that something's happened *solely because* of a single butterfly is a crap.
Yeah, no I agree with everything that I'm reading. I've just been stressing point 2 the most.
Post by
Squishalot
Yeah, no I agree with everything that I'm reading. I've just been stressing point 2 the most.
Awesome. I think that point 4 is the more telling one, in terms of presenting an argument against Kinesis's view of Chaos Theory, that doesn't just go at disagreeing with the definitions of the term, because it demonstrates that nothing is dependent on one little butterfly.
Anyway, I'm off for the day - I'll drop in as and when I can. Have fun all.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Now, I have no idea if Kinesis is even here any more, but I would also ask what are you bringing into the picture that is different than pure determinism?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The butterfly's flap of its wing may not be what knocks down the city, but it's what leads to the next set of events that could cause the collapse of a city.
No it's not. It's a factor, but so is the moose, so are the poisonous mushrooms, etc. Lose the mushrooms and you lose the whole chain. Lose the moose and you lose the whole chain. You're isolating an event that shouldn't be isolated. The boy being there to see the butterfly was just as important. The weather being good enough to allow him to follow was just as important. The fact that the Romans didn't invade the whole of Africa 200 years earlier is just as important. Etc.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.