Chaos Theory

[The Trendy Wolf]

I have spent much of my time pondering this topic (even before I had heard of Chaos Theory) and I had previously conjured my own opinion:

I believed that if we knew every single piece of information that there was to know, throughout the entirety of the universe, down to the position of each atom, then we would have the ability to predict the future.

I debated this with my mother and she stated that this isn't completely true since we, as humans, have free will. I considered this and proposed to her that if we knew what was going on in that person's head and body, each and every cell, then we would be able to calculate their next move, even the next blink of their eye. I justified this by stating that every event is determined by events prior, and saying otherwise is equal to saying that an event is determined by absolutely nothing at all.

After continuously arguing my beliefs we finally arrived home. My mother called me into her office room just minutes later. To my amazement, she had a news story, that had been posted that day, titled "Even Chaos is Predictable" pulled up on her laptop. I felt at this point like I was a true scholar of philosophy and science, and I was still in awe of the coincidence that had occurred. The same day, the same question, the same argument, and the same answer!

What are your opinions on the predictability of the future and what are your justifications?

This is the news story (Video):
http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=4&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/7653f103-6f04-4688-a2b1-a8abd368b47a

[Taylor7500]

Well on your point of knowing everything, it's probably worth noting that the uncertainty principle says that it's fundamentally impossible to know everything down to the position of the individual atom, though I can see what you're getting at.
I suppose that if and when we understand consciousness and as a result free will, I think it could mean that people become easier to predict, but I think the current thought is that it will end up being something quantum based which is all probability and uncertainty anyway, so I don't know if it will necessarily figure itself out quite so smoothly and easily as you said, though it's always very interesting to consider what might be happening.
When it comes to predicting to the future, of course if left to its own devices, we can predict the future of the universe on the macro scale, like how stars will move etc etc, though I don't think it will be possible to predict people's decisions and hence how that will affect the universe due to the quantum uncertainty of everything.

[Gigablue]

Even if we were to know the exact conditions of everything in the universe (which is impossible due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), we still couldn't predict the future accurately. This is not, however, because of free will (which doesn't really exist), but rather due to the nature of the universe.

If we lived in a classical universe, where the laws of cause and effect were absolute, you would be right. However, we live in a quantum universe, and on the quantum level, there are many acausal, completely random events. Given enough time, these events would make our predictions inaccurate.

[workingatperfect]

Those two have pretty much summed up my thoughts^
The Chaos Theory, if I'm correct, is based on a deterministic system, which has no random events. That's not what kind of system we live in. We have random, unpredictable things in our universe. I remember my physics teacher talking once about wavefunction, and how over time it will become completely unpredictable, as it would no longer represent a definite position and without that definite, you throw off any predictions that may be somehow centered around that.

[darthearth]

.....which doesn't really exist....

I can't help but notice an inappropriate propensity for definitive statements such as this (usually from atheists of course). In truth, you don't know, if you do know I suggest contacting Nature magazine and publishing.


I believe free will is exercised through the spirit's effect on the underlying quantum probability in the brain. Researchers believe that if this was the case the effect would be too small to even measure, but at least a few of them are working on it (I forget their names right now).

So in short I do not believe we could predict the future exactly due to free will and normal quantum probability. Also:

"we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system."

Quote From:

http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

[Bleid]

I have spent much of my time pondering this topic (even before I had heard of Chaos Theory) and I had previously conjured my own opinion:

I believed that if we knew every single piece of information that there was to know, throughout the entirety of the universe, down to the position of each atom, then we would have the ability to predict the future.

I debated this with my mother and she stated that this isn't completely true since we, as humans, have free will. I considered this and proposed to her that if we knew what was going on in that person's head and body, each and every cell, then we would be able to calculate their next move, even the next blink of their eye. I justified this by stating that every event is determined by events prior, and saying otherwise is equal to saying that an event is determined by absolutely nothing at all.

After continuously arguing my beliefs we finally arrived home. My mother called me into her office room just minutes later. To my amazement, she had a news story, that had been posted that day, titled "Even Chaos is Predictable" pulled up on her laptop. I felt at this point like I was a true scholar of philosophy and science, and I was still in awe of the coincidence that had occurred. The same day, the same question, the same argument, and the same answer!

What are your opinions on the predictability of the future and what are your justifications?

This is the news story (Video):
http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=4&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/7653f103-6f04-4688-a2b1-a8abd368b47a


In the study of reasoning (logic) we have what's known as The Principle of Sufficient Reason.

This principle states that, for any one thing (state of affairs, event, entity in existence), there must be a reason as to why it is the way it is.

And this is unavoidably so. Something that is the case must be the case for a reason.

It's especially well known in computer science that there is no such thing as genuine randomness and chaos. All of our "random-number-generators" have "pseudo" attached to their names for a very good reason.

The argument against genuine chaos and randomness is as follows:

1. If something is the case, it has a reason as to why it is the case.
2. If it has a reason as to why it is the case, then it pre-determined before it unfolds.
3. If it is pre-determined before it unfolds, then there is no randomness, only order.
_____________
4. Therefore, if something is the case, then there is no randomness, only order.

This argument form is known as hypothetical syllogism. The conclusion is guaranteed by the premises, if the premises are true.

[sqishy]

Quantum physics, being one of the newest parts of science, shows that everything is made up of probability wave/particles, and that causality, if it truly exists, is much different than in classical physics.
We have made magnificent success in beginning to understand this universe with out mathematics, logic and reason. But let us not think that we can define, judge and predict the universe/world/everything with logic. It's far more than that. There is far more chaos in the world than many think, and without it there would be no universe.

By measuring something you are changing what you are measuring. That effect is large enough to bring the uncertainty principle down at subatomic scales, but the effect still exists at our scale. Thermometers need to exchange heat with something to get its temperature, which is changing its temperature when reading it. If I get a small telescope to view Jupiter, I am moving a tiny part of Earth's mass (the telescope), changing Earth's gravitational field slightly, which changes the force Jupiter experiences from Earth's gravitational field a bit, moving Jupiter. The effect is unbelievably small yes, but not zero. Every time I get a telescope to view Jupiter, I am moving the entire planet when viewing it. I have changed the planet by observing it.

Everything is relative and constantly changing. In a way we are on the metaphorical rafts of order drifting in the stormy seas of chaos. Negentropic we seem to be, but by being so we are creating more entropy than by not being here. So much more to say about this, and so much more to see.

We'll surprise ourselves, I'm sure :D .

[Bleid]

Quantum physics, being one of the newest parts of science, shows that everything is made up of probability wave/particles, and that causality, if it truly exists, is much different than in classical physics.
We have made magnificent success in beginning to understand this universe with out mathematics, logic and reason. But let us not think that we can define, judge and predict the universe/world/everything with logic. It's far more than that. There is far more chaos in the world than many think, and without it there would be no universe.

By measuring something you are changing what you are measuring. That effect is large enough to bring the uncertainty principle down at subatomic scales, but the effect still exists at our scale. Thermometers need to exchange heat with something to get its temperature, which is changing its temperature when reading it. If I get a small telescope to view Jupiter, I am moving a tiny part of Earth's mass (the telescope), changing Earth's gravitational field slightly, which changes the force Jupiter experiences from Earth's gravitational field a bit, moving Jupiter. The effect is unbelievably small yes, but not zero. Every time I get a telescope to view Jupiter, I am moving the entire planet when viewing it. I have changed the planet by observing it.

Everything is relative and constantly changing. In a way we are on the metaphorical rafts of order drifting in the stormy seas of chaos. Negentropic we seem to be, but by being so we are creating more entropy than by not being here. So much more to say about this, and so much more to see.

We'll surprise ourselves, I'm sure :D .


There is not any chaos in quantum mechanics. The processes in quantum mechanics may be strange, but they are still well-known as deterministic. Any physicist will tell you that.

[Human]

I don't really think things like atoms could affect a persons conscious decision
To be fair, I've never really understood chaos theory

[Miserabilia]

About "free will" , as I mentioned in a thread i just made, there is none.
A "concious decision" accurs because of what your brain does, and what your brain does is a response to something else, and that is a response to something else, etc.
There is no true conciousnes, only an illusion.

Saying everything works by cause and effect, but only humans have "free wil" is just silly to me.

[Bleid]

About "free will" , as I mentioned in a thread i just made, there is none.
A "concious decision" accurs because of what your brain does, and what your brain does is a response to something else, and that is a response to something else, etc.
There is no true conciousnes, only an illusion.

Saying everything works by cause and effect, but only humans have "free wil" is just silly to me.

The principle of cause and effect does not necessarily exclude the possibility that Free Will exists for humans or any other living thing.

[Miserabilia]

The principle of cause and effect does not necessarily exclude the possibility that Free Will exists for humans or any other living thing.

Actually , it does. You make decisions with your brain. Your "free will" is caused by your brain. Your brain is a mechanisam that responds to the envirement.
cause-> effect

[sqishy]

There is not any chaos in quantum mechanics. The processes in quantum mechanics may be strange, but they are still well-known as deterministic. Any physicist will tell you that.

No chaos in quantum mechanics itself, but with everything being probabilistic and very easy to disturb, quantum fluctuations seem chaotic at a large scale (us) unless you get to know every part of it. We thought classical mechanics would give us deterministic results, but we learned things are far harder to predict than we thought. Can't predict at what time it will rain tomorrow to the minute.

[Bleid]

Actually , it does. You make decisions with your brain. Your "free will" is caused by your brain. Your brain is a mechanisam that responds to the envirement.
cause-> effect

For the underlined part: This is not for certain, however. You are speciously inferring that this is the case because the end result of a decision is processed through the brain. Simply because when I pick up a stick, I have brain activity telling me this, that does not mean that the decision itself of whether or not to pick up the stick actually originated in the brain. You're leaping a bit too far with that conclusion.

For the bold part: It's ill-advised to use the phrase, "free will" when your thesis is precisely that free will does not exist. I suggest changing terminology, otherwise you're contradicting yourself. Already addressed the bold claim for the underlined part, though. You are not absolutely certain that decisions are procured by the brain, only that they are later carried out by it.

But, even if decisions were produced by the brain, and the brain responds to the environment, no where in that idea can we gather that there is no freedom in our response to the environment, once we get the stimuli from it.


No chaos in quantum mechanics itself, but with everything being probabilistic and very easy to disturb, quantum fluctuations seem chaotic at a large scale (us) unless you get to know every part of it. We thought classical mechanics would give us deterministic results, but we learned things are far harder to predict than we thought. Can't predict at what time it will rain tomorrow to the minute.

Lack of predictability isn't necessarily equivalent to chaos and randomness, though. The only thing that an issue with predictability concerns is an issue with prediction - not in the actuality of things.

Predictability has to do with epistemology (knowledge of a state of affairs). A state of affairs actually being chaotic has to do with concerns of a more metaphysical nature (the actual state of affairs itself).

[Miserabilia]

For the underlined part: This is not for certain, however. You are speciously inferring that this is the case because the end result of a decision is processed through the brain. Simply because when I pick up a stick, I have brain activity telling me this, that does not mean that the decision itself of whether or not to pick up the stick actually originated in the brain. You're leaping a bit too far with that conclusion.

[I]For the [B]bold part: It's ill-advised to use the phrase, "free will" when your thesis is precisely that free will does not exist. I suggest changing terminology, otherwise you're contradicting yourself.

"Free wil" is not what I would call it myself, that's why I placed it in " "
Sorry if this confused you.

[Bleid]

"Free wil" is not what I would call it myself, that's why I placed it in " "
Sorry if this confused you.

Fair enough.

The only issue I had with the quotations and why I mentioned that, is because if we're talking in general and we use quotations, it could be interpreted differently. Let's say we were talking about goblins.

Then if I would express my disbelief with quotes, it might come across that I am actually declaring that they are there if I was to say something like,

"So you're saying that the creatures under the bed are "goblins"?"

It could be understood that I am simply quoting someone else's name for the creatures, instead of expressing that I don't believe that those creatures are goblins.

[Miserabilia]

Fair enough.

The only issue I had with the quotations and why I mentioned that, is because if we're talking in general and we use quotations, it could be interpreted differently. Let's say we were talking about goblins.

Then if I would express my disbelief with quotes, it might come across that I am actually declaring that they are there if I was to say something like,

"So you're saying that the creatures under the bed are "goblins"?"

It could be understood that I am simply quoting someone else's name for the creatures, instead of expressing that I don't believe that those creatures are goblins.

lol let's keep this thread relevant :P

[Bleid]

lol let's keep this thread relevant :P

I'd say it is relevant, because it is an analogy explaining a response to something that is relevant.

But yes, certainly. Back to randomness and chaos and other silly ideas.

Genuine randomness would be difficult to prove the existence of. Even for that of quantum-mechanical processes.

(And no, I don't intend the last statement there as a response to anything you said, cheesee)

[Miserabilia]

I'd say it is relevant, because it is an analogy explaining a response to something that is relevant.

But yes, certainly. Back to randomness and chaos and other silly ideas.

Genuine randomness would be difficult to prove the existence of. Even for that of quantum-mechanical processes.

(And no, I don't intend the last statement there as a response to anything you said, cheesee)

I like interesting debates *yays*
Yeah I'm not sure if true ranomnes exists.
I beleive in a deterministic universe, perfectly structered, tiny causes and effects leading to bigger and bigger ones, like a complicated tapestry.

[Bleid]

I like interesting debates *yays*
Yeah I'm not sure if true ranomnes exists.
I beleive in a deterministic universe, perfectly structered, tiny causes and effects leading to bigger and bigger ones, like a complicated tapestry.

We can guarantee that true randomness doesn't exist in any important way, for, the antecedent would be seemingly impossible to satisfy outside of nothing occurring at all, as well as the consequent being vacuous.

Consider the concept of a genuine random event. One that is honestly not influenced by anything that exists and is entirely probabilistic in nature.

There is nothing that will occur, nor nothing that would be occurred from.

Since, let's consider all of our random models. They're based on probabilities. We naively may consider a roll of a pair of die to be random. However, what are the probabilities in such a case based on? Determined states of affairs.

Of two standard die, with 6 sides and a 1-6 listed particularly on each side of both die, we get that the sums are most likely going to add up to 7 when rolled. We have a manner of probabilities for it. Something is still likely to occur here, because there is still something determined about the system that we can easily note by mathematics.

However, for a genuinely random event there is nothing that can be determined about the system. That's what it means for it to be genuinely random. There is nothing determined about it. By this, we would need to conclude that there is no probability we can apply to it. All possible outcomes have a likelihood of 0. None will occur, by necessity of what the randomness would entail.

By this, the outcome would also be empty, because there is nothing to be determined by the case. A random event with nothing determining a domain for the alleged randomness is no such event at all. There is no case of "likely to occur this way or that," and so there is no case of what is to occur at all, and so not only is the cause of a genuinely random event an impossible feat, but this entails that even if an impossible feat were to occur, the random event would be empty, because it would need to have something determined about its outcome, otherwise nothing would be the result.


Succinctly, and keeping in mind that genuine randomness entails non-deterministic states of affairs,

From a state of affairs where it is not determined to have any outcome, it follows necessarily that it is not determined to have any outcome.

Tautological statement.

Perhaps, though, we have demonstrated that true randomness is merely vacuous to the point where, a genuinely random event is the case at all hours of the day and at all instances of time, since, it is when nothing is derived from a state of affairs of nullity. This entailing that true randomness is constantly the case, but not in any practical understanding or to be of any real use or worth.

[rogoshtalmour]

I think within chaos there is probably order just order that we can't see. In order to see it like you said we would have to be able to see and experience all of reality at once.

[Miserabilia]

I think within chaos there is probably order just order that we can't see. In order to see it like you said we would have to be able to see and experience all of reality at once.

Yup. There seems chaos, but in the end it all results from simple rules and cause and effect.