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
Kinesis
The problem that Hyper and Squish seem to be having is that they're trying to debate against the buttefly effect.
You can't. It happens. It can happen, as detailed in the OP. As for squish - you're saying "Oh it doesn't just boil down to that one event it's a bunch of different events " - ... I have no words for this.
That is the butterfly effect.
Next time you try to debate against something, try learning what it is.
And hyper: Your problem is that you think this is a debate. It isn't. It's not a debate over whether or not chaos theory is real. I just wanted to see what people thought of the butterfly effect as a whole.
Let's examine some of the first posts in this thread, shall we?
How is a series of interconnected events 'chaos'?
Complexity =/= chaos
this post was nonsensical, as it rejected the definition of the term.
And I'm saying that's not chaos, that's complexity.
Again, rejecting the definition of a term.
A simple-minded person would call the fact that 2 combustible gasses can come together to form a liquid that puts out fire chaos. He would be wrong. The reasons are just too complex for him to understand.
Likewise, just because 2 events seem like they shouldn't be connected to us, doesn't mean that there isn't some direct and deterministic reason for them being connected.
ignoring the premise of the topic and starting your own debate.
And this is why Wiki is widely reknowned as a horrible source of information. Or alternatively, why chaos theory is a load of garbage, take your pick.
Attacking wikipedia as a source of information for, once again, defining a term. Seriously, you two need to stop arguing against the definition of the term. It means what it means.
The idea that long-term predictions are impossible is more to do with
quantum theory
,
That's not chaos theory, and not what this thread is about.
Can you trace a large event in your life down to a simple event?
And just to answer the question?
No. A large event in your life is simply (or complex-ly) the consequent results of all of history.
Again - that IS the butterfly effect. I have no idea what you're trying to pull here.
Strawman?
(the answer is yes)
so right from the start you both ignored the premise of the topic and went off on your own tangents - both of which were arguing against the definitions of hte terms.
/I guess you guys were right - I'm just too stupid to understand your conversation./
Post by
Kinesis
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.
Yes. That is the butterfly effect. Your argument collapses on itself - you are arguing against a term you don't fully understand and just making a fool of yourself in the process.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kinesis
I'm sorry but what exactly are you arguing? Are you saying that you believe the theory or you don't?
By saying that it's one of the steps in the sequence of events, I'm implying that the butterfly is merely a factor. The wind from flapping its wing is its effect. I'm isolating one point of the entire sequence primarily because I don't have the time to explain the entire scenario. I could include the temperature, the time of day or night, brightness, humidity, locations of trees, whether or not grass is present, what happens before and after, etc. but I really don't feel the need to explain the surroundings to get a point across.
I'm also not saying that the theoretical boy who happened to be watching the butterfly isn't just as important. If he wasn't there, the butterfly may not have felt like moving and may not have flapped its wing; it's impossible to know. Either way, he would be the previous event to the butterfly flapping its wings, just as many other things would be.
Thank you for understanding the premise before replying.
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kinesis
Oh my god Kinesis are you %^&*ing kidding me?
So. You ask for an opinion and get some. But these are 'wrong' and it's apparent you just wanted someone to agree with you.
You then go on to slate everyone who doesn't agree with you, and even when they do - me - I'm 'not sober enough' for you.
You then go on to state that this wasn't the place to 'wax philosophical'. Are you taking the %^&*? On WORLD OF WARCRAFT forums, labelled RANDOMNESS? what the %^&* did you expect, Aristotle to raise himself from the dead and engage in some discussion even your 'enlightened' mind found engaging?
NO. Just no.
You blatantly think yourself better than everyone. You aren't. In fact, by thinking that you are you have proved to everyone you are in fact a @#$%.
I could probably beat you at football, guitar, beat the @#$% out of you in a proper fight, im sure i could out-shoot you on the range and im positive im a much better person than you. I don't think im good though - just better than the likes of yourself, an absolute prick with nothing to do other than say "whats your opinion? oh, doesn't matter, unless you agree with me."
K.N.O.B.H.E.A.D
Enjoy working at Burger King and thinking you're better than everyone else.
o_O
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The problem that Hyper and Squish seem to be having is that they're trying to debate against the buttefly effect.
You can't. It happens. It can happen, as detailed in the OP. As for squish - you're saying "Oh it doesn't just boil down to that one event it's a bunch of different events " - ... I have no words for this.
That is the butterfly effect.
Next time you try to debate against something, try learning what it is.
And hyper: Your problem is that you think this is a debate. It isn't. It's not a debate over whether or not chaos theory is real. I just wanted to see what people thought of the butterfly effect as a whole.
And I told you what I thought about it: it's based in an unscientific system. You're the one turning it into a debate by then going and denying that opinion.
How is a series of interconnected events 'chaos'?
Complexity =/= chaos
this post was nonsensical, as it rejected the definition of the term.
More than rejecting the definition, I rejecting the very idea of chaos as defined by you (via Gorefiend) as unpredict
able
determinism. Complexity is unpredict
ed
(or hard to predict) determinism. The very notion of something being deterministic and being unpredictable (in and of itself) is absurd. Yes I agree that there is we can predict certain things at the moment, but that does not mean that those things are themselves not predictable.
And I'm saying that's not chaos, that's complexity.
Again, rejecting the definition of a term.
What's with you and definitions? I don't give a ^&*! about definitions. I'm rejecting the whole notion of chaos, the whole notion of unpredictable determinism. Instead I'm replacing it with a complex, but ultimately predictable nonetheless, determinism.
A simple-minded person would call the fact that 2 combustible gasses can come together to form a liquid that puts out fire chaos. He would be wrong. The reasons are just too complex for him to understand.
Likewise, just because 2 events seem like they shouldn't be connected to us, doesn't mean that there isn't some direct and deterministic reason for them being connected.
ignoring the premise of the topic and starting your own debate.
What are you smoking? It's an analogy.
Just as, as one's level of intelligence increases one is able to understand things that seemed chaotic or random before; so too there may come a time when we can understand the cause of everything. We should be moving towards that end, not curling up and saying it's unknowable/unpredictable. If the chemists had done that we would have gone on thinking that there was no knowable order to chemical reactions.
And this is why Wiki is widely reknowned as a horrible source of information. Or alternatively, why chaos theory is a load of garbage, take your pick.
Attacking wikipedia as a source of information for, once again, defining a term. Seriously, you two need to stop arguing against the definition of the term. It means what it means.
He pointed out a flaw in how the definition was presented. It's up to you whether you think the flaw is in the definition or in the theory itself. I personally believe it's the later, and I'm fairly confident that Squish does too. So you can put your 'save the definition' banner away now.
The idea that long-term predictions are impossible is more to do with
quantum theory
,
That's not chaos theory, and not what this thread is about.
You're logical reasoning is lacking.
You/Gorefiend -> Chaos theory = unpredictable
Squish -> No, unpredictability belongs to a different branch of the science, quantum theory.
Can you trace a large event in your life down to a simple event?
And just to answer the question?
No. A large event in your life is simply (or complex-ly) the consequent results of all of history.
Again - that IS the butterfly effect. I have no idea what you're trying to pull here.
Strawman?
(the answer is yes)
You're contradicting yourself, so I won't even bother.
so right from the start you both ignored the premise of the topic and went off on your own tangents - both of which were arguing against the definitions of hte terms.
I gave you my opinion on the Butterfly Effect as used by Chaos Theory. Don't ask for opinions if you want a thread all to yourself (not that you'll get that anyways).
/I guess you guys were right - I'm just too stupid to understand your conversation./
Please, keep the record straight. I have not called you stupid.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
By saying that it's one of the steps in the sequence of events, I'm implying that the butterfly is merely a factor. The wind from flapping its wing is its effect. I'm isolating one point of the entire sequence primarily because I don't have the time to explain the entire scenario. I could include the temperature, the time of day or night, brightness, humidity, locations of trees, whether or not grass is present, what happens before and after, etc. but I really don't feel the need to explain the surroundings to get a point across.
But you have to include all those if you want to be accurate. Saying the butterfly collapsed the economy is not accurate and it's deceptive and it's
unscientific
. The butterfly flapping its wings at a specific speed, in a specific place, at a specific time, witnessed by a specific being, in conjunction another being eating a specific mushroom at a specific time, in a specific place, after a specific event, while another specific being hunts it, etc. etc. etc. ...is what collapsed the economy.
Post by
Kinesis
Time to move on to another board to find people who are less, well... trollish.
Bye Harper. By Gorefiend.
...
And I'll miss you the most, scarecrow.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And I'll miss you the most, scarecrow.
If this comment is a clever way of calling Hyper a strawman (again), Kinesis juts won 2 internets.
People aren't strawmen, imaginary arguments are. You should look up big words before you use them
He's referring to the scarecrow in Wizard of Oz, who didn't have a brain. You should stay on top of all your classics.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Time to move on to another board to find people who are less, well... trollish.
Bye Harper. By Gorefiend.
...
And I'll miss you the most, scarecrow.
Bye! We'll miss you Dorothy! Don't forget to tap your shoes before leaving!
Poor Squish got forgotten about :( I know, you can be the Tin-man!
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
59431
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
What, I don't have a heart? No no, you're mistaking me for svirve ;p
As for squish - you're saying "Oh it doesn't just boil down to that one event it's a bunch of different events " - ... I have no words for this.
That is the butterfly effect.
No. The butterfly effect is based on the principle that sensitivity of starting conditions results in varying results. i.e. Try (A), and get this result. Try (B) and get this other result instead, holding all else constant.
It's a fancy name for sensitivity analysis. The idea is that you change
one
variable and see how the results change. But any result isn't 'surprising' or 'unpredictable' - you can model and follow the change through your system.
If the economy collapses, it's because the butterfly moved left, AND the moose was poisoned, AND there was gold to be found, AND everything else that occured in that world. The way you're presenting the butterfly effect suggests that the economy collapses
solely
because of the change in the butterfly movement, when in reality, it's because of everything in the world being what it is, including the butterfly movement. It's also blatantly incorrect, see below quote later.
No. A large event in your life is simply (or complex-ly) the consequent results of all of history.
Again - that IS the butterfly effect. I have no idea what you're trying to pull here.
Not quite, you're misunderstanding the point.
"A large event in your life is simply (or complex-ly) the consequent result of
a single event in the past
." = butterfly effect = not what I said.
"A large event in your life is simply (or complex-ly) the consequent results of
all of history
." = what I said = any event occurs because of much more than just a single butterfly sometime in the past.
If you fail to comprehend this point, then there isn't anything else I can do to open your mind.
Next time you try to debate against something, try learning what it is.
I suggest that you try your own advice.
Since you guys seem to like Wiki so much, here's a quote from the Butterfly Effect page:
While the butterfly does not "cause" the tornado in the sense of providing the energy for the tornado, it does "cause" it in the sense that the flap of its wings is
an essential part of the initial conditions resulting in a tornado
, and without that flap that particular tornado would not have existed.
Without all the other essential initial conditions, that particular tornado wouldn't have existed either. This is why I believe the butterfly effect is meaningless.
chaos theory is a load of garbage...
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.
Since I didn't make it clearer, let me summarise my two points for you.
1) The butterfly exists, and is a load of crap, because it's a meaningless observation.
2) Chaos Theory is true as defined, and is also a load of crap, much for the same reason.
Summary of why the Butterfly Effect is meaningless:
A) Everything occurs because of the events immediately preceding it.
Woah! Everybody, quick, come around and worship this idea and say it's awesome! And because it's true, you can't disagree with it!
And hey, that notion is pretty meaningless too. But funnily enough, it's something that the butterfly effect relies on to be true, so you'd think that it deserves more attention and praise, eh?
Post by
Squishalot
And just to reiterate:
Can you trace a large event in your life down to a simple event?
And just to answer the question?
No. 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.
My original answer still stands. You can pinpoint a simple event that was one of the causes of a large event, but you can't trace a large event back to a single event point in your past.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Gorefiend, going back to the start, Hyper and my objections to the arguments you and Kinesis have presented is based on the premise that the butterfly theory emphasises that an event is caused 'solely' because of the butterfly event, which isn't true, as you say.
But if you go back to the original question being posed:
A butterfly flaps its wings, a city collapses.
Can you trace a large event in your life down to a simple event?
This is implying exactly that - the city collapse can be traced back *solely* to the fact that the butterfly flapped its wings. This isn't true. And this is the main objection that Hyper and I have.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.