> From: Moose <bylzbbfr@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Ken Norton wrote:
>>
>> There is a good argument that "Chaos Theory" is just plain bad
>> science... I maintain that Chaos Theory is poor science and a way
>> of saying "There is something weird going on here that I haven't
>> quantified yet."
>
> I disagree. I believe you are mocking what you don't understand. I
> could
> go on, but suggest that you take a look at Chaos - The Making of a New
> Science, by James Gleick.
An excellent reference, Moose!
Chaos theory is best summarized as the study of dynamic systems that
are highly sensitive to initial conditions, such that, over time, they
appear random.
Although such systems are indeed deterministic, parts-per-trillion
differences in the initial conditions can cause completely different
results in relatively short periods of time. This is perhaps where Ken
gets the idea that it's just "bad science:" if one could make all
physical measurements with infinite precision, chaotic systems would
be predictable.
One of the simplest and easiest examples is the "logistics equation"
used in modelling trophic (food-energy transfer) systems in ecology,
which can easily be modelled and graphed in a common spreadsheet.
One famous example is the lynx-hare population studies in Canada. For
a grad-level ecology class I took in the early '90's, I plugged human
numbers in for the predator, and oil reserves for the prey, and
predicted gross instability around 2005. (I was a few years early, it
appears. I can't tell you *when* the population crashes like the
lynxes do, but in all my runs, it *did* crash. :-)
Other simple, easily plotted examples of chaotic systems include the
Lorenz transform and the Mandlebrot set.
Real-world chaotic systems are tremendously complex things, with
extreme sensitivity to dozens of initial conditions. Thus the
speculation that a butterfly flapping its wings in Beijing could cause
a thunderstorm a week later in Toronto. While this particular example
could never be proven nor disproven, I think it's a useful illustration.
Some people like to (ad)use chaos theory to debunk complex problems
like climate change: "We can't possibly predict that accurately, so
let's have a party and not worry." And yet, volition can play a part
in chaotic systems: the wolves of Isle Royal (which have a matriarchal
society) seem to wilfully limit their reproduction as the supply of
moose goes down. When you live on an island, you're aware of your
boundaries. Will humans learn to live on their planetary island, or
will chaos inevitably result?
:::: Giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. -- Paul Ehrlich ::::
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.VeggieVanGogh.com> ::::
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|