[MD] Chaos

[ian glendinning]

Hi Marsha, notwithstanding all the other metaphorical associations of
the word chaos, the thing that raises it above "baloney"
scientifically is this .

You say "beyond our ability to predict"

I would say beyond our abilty to use simple cause and effect, "if this
then that" type predictions of "specific" outcomes. Rather than
limiting our ability to predict full stop, it limits what we are able
to predict "about" outcomes from given initial conditions.

People who study chaos scientifically show that there are typical
recurring patterns - "attractors" - that shape the nature of the
outcomes, rather than define the specific outcomes .... Example ...

When you look at a dribbling tap (fawcett) you would probably not be
able to predict the precise shape, size and timing of any given water
drop that hits the kitchen sink, but you can say a good deal about the
general pattern of the dribble and the range of water drop sizes and
their ditribution / spacing.

Studying this kind of chaos helps us understand the limits to what can
be predicted, rather than just conclude "they are unpredictable".

Not all chaos is equal ... it's a matter of finding the patterns
within patterns within ... the seeming chaos.

Ian

On 12/8/06, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Chin,
>
> So chaos is a low value state because it is beyond _our_ ability to
> predict?  And relative to that word  _our_?   I suppose it's also
> relative to a time period?  Or does chaos imply without end.
>
> I wonder why people like to throw this word, 'chaos', around.  What
> is their intention?  Is it justified?   It's become like 'evil', the
> 'devil', 'communism', 'nihilism', or 'terrorism'.  Someone might say,
> "This is not "freedom" as I understand it, but chaos."   This seems
> like the scientific version of 'BOO!!!'.  Any reason why this isn't baloney?
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 09:01 AM 12/8/2006, you wrote:
> >Chaos just simply states that no matter how much data you collect,
> >there is not reason to believe the next set of data will look anything
> >like the last. In predicting the weather, a butterfly flapping its
> >wings on the other side of the world could cause a tornado that was
> >going to happen here not, or one that was not going to happen, happen.
> >
> >In mathematics, if you start with the number 5 at the beginning of an
> >extended equation, the end result would be totally different if you
> >used the number 5.00001 at the beginning.
> >
> >In finance, it lead to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, or the Random
> >Walk Hypothesis that states it is unlikely to be able to predict the
> >future returns of any grouping of stocks to the point you could beat
> >the collective efforts of all participants by simply holding a proxy
> >of the market such as an index fund at a lower cost.
> >
> >In cosmology, we might build instruments that will reach to the ends
> >of the universe as we know it that may confirm the Big Bang Theory
> >from billions of light years worth of data, but then if we were able
> >to build instruments that could observe trillions of light years away,
> >we might find another universe that is also expanding, or in the act
> >of contracting, which might bring us to a theory that our universe is
> >no more than something like the electron of our observed universe in
> >an even grander universe. On the other side of infinity, we might find
> >that our electron in our observed universe is another universe inside
> >this observed universe.
> >
> >All our knowledge is based on what we know. We can control chaos to
> >the point we can claim it is not chaos by finding patterns that
> >repeat, even if these patterns are unpredictable, but we can't know
> >these patterns will not change from something like the act of a
> >butterfly flapping its wings.
> >
> >Or, at least that is my theory. I'm sure it doesn't fit in with the
> >theory of others, but then again that's their theories. ;o)
> >
> >Chin
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> >Date: Friday, December 8, 2006 5:10 am
> >Subject: [MD] Chaos
> >To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chaos is relative.  Isn't it?
> > >
> > >
> > > moq_discuss mailing list
> > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > > Archives:
> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> > >
> >moq_discuss mailing list
> >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >Archives:
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>