You bring up a very interesting point and I'm not sure I have a
definitive answer for you but I you may find it useful to review this
Wiki article discussing randomness vs. unpredictability
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random#Randomness_versus_unpredictability>
I agree that in our everyday experience we would likely agree that your
clock's mechanical friction is random and not deterministic... but you
go on to point out "unless one distinguishes between what the materials
and situation determine and things that we may determine and predict."
In other words, if we have a great deal of materials, temperature,
lubrication and wear information (plus probably a lot of stuff I can't
think of) we would be able to model the seemingly random behavior of the
clock mechanism. But we don't do it because we don't know how or don't
have the data or don't consider it worthwhile or possibly many other
reasons.
So even if the climate is deterministic at the deepest level (assume we
understand the quantum state of all the particles in the universe) the
climate models do not and cannot take account of it and are therefore
still trying to fathom a chaotic system. After all, they still haven't
accounted for the fluttering of myriads of butterfly wings in Jim's and
Mike's gardens. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/2/2012 11:38 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 12/2/2012 7:56 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Someone asked me privately whether my use of the term "chaotic" with
>> respect to climate was a technical term he was unfamiliar with.
>
> A particularly apt application of the term, as early computer weather
> modeling work was one root of the development of
> Chaos Theory. See James Gleick, Chaos.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos:_Making_a_New_Science>
>
>> I hadn't thought about it earlier but perhaps others do not know it
>> either. My answer:
>>
>> On 12/2/2012 9:57 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>> Yes, a technical and mathematical term. See:
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory>
>
> "This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their
> future behavior is fully determined by
> their initial conditions, with no random elements involved."
>
> Interesting. That doesn't agree with my couple of decades old, non-expert
> understanding. I seem to recall that one
> aspect was the effects of factors that may be not only non-linear in the
> moment, but also over time. An example would be
> a mechanical clock. As the parts don't move smoothly, but with stops and
> starts, the friction between them crosses the
> most non-linear stage over and over again.
>
> In spite of the optimistic things they taught in my physics classes, that
> kind of friction is not deterministic, unless
> one distinguishes between what the materials and situation determine and
> things that we may determine and predict.
>
> Then, of course, the friction changes the materials in non-linear ways that
> we cannot ever accurately model and predict.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstand the precise meaning of deterministic in this context.
> Or perhaps that part has been moved from
> Chaos Theory somewhere else?
>
> Yes, I've read non-technical stuff about Uncertainty Theory, fascinating
> stuff, but not, I think, what I'm talking about
> here.
>
> Confuse A Moose
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|