This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Mods Please Lock
Return to board index
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Cool, we're on the same page, sortof.
It's not a series of events. It's everything about a particular point in time. Not just the fact that the butterfly moved left, but that the moose was poisoned, and that gold was in the location it was found. Everything about the world was a part of the 'initial conditions'. Do you agree with that?
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Cool, still on the same page.
Now, if any factor is changed, you'd get a new effect, what's the point of the butterfly effect? What makes that butterlfy so special? Isn't such a statement sort of obvious?
Compare that to the idea of causality, as I mentioned in post 78 - isn't the idea that everything occurs because of the events immediately preceding it so much more fundamental and important than the butterfly effect?
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Not really. The butterfly effect wouldn't exist if there wasn't a causal relationship between events (i.e. events could just 'happen', without needing to be caused by the flapping wings, the city can just collapse with no cause). Therefore, the butterfly effect must assume that events are caused by preceding events.
The butterfly effect was coined as a way of explaining sensitivity testing. This presumes a causal relationship between variables and results. The butterfly effect, in itself, is in no way anything more special than substituting X = 1 with X = 2 in a formula to get a different result. I would have thought a much more fundamental principle is the fact that X = 1 gives you a result at all.
The 'premise' of the butterfly effect is that a small change in a variable can have an unexpected sensitised effect elsewhere, as a result of cause and effect. It doesn't define cause and effect in and of itself.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yawn, g'morning.
What is the civilized discussion I'm seeing? Need moar fite!
Post by
Squishalot
I lol'd :)
You can carry on - I'm about to head off soon ;p 1:30am over here!
Edit: Noone's replied in the last 10 minutes, so off I go. I hope I've explained clearly enough why the 'butterfly effect', in itself, is nothing special - if not, Hyper can explain further ;p
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Ah, my brain! I'm going to get coffee and look at this later :P
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
410715
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
interesting that the conversation from you guys turned intelligent as soon as kinesis left....
Um...nothing new has been said since he left.
The problem with Kinesis was that he refused to hold up his end of the argument. It was like trying to play ping pong by yourself. Gorefiend on the other hand is actually hitting the ball back.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Gah, distracted by the Catholicism thread, so still here. Ok, here goes:
I don't really know where you're going with this point though; I thought that the Butterfuly Effect does assume that events are caused by preceding events?
That is exactly where I'm with this point. Because of that assumption, the premise of the Butterfly Effect is nothing special - it's simply a complicated case of causality.
I'm not denying that X = 1 is a much more fundamental principle, I'm just saying that you can't disregard the Chaos Theory because there are more important principles.
Chaos Theory states that it's impossible to predict the future due to the 'chaotic' things, as demonstrated by the butterfly effect. But we've just demonstrated that the butterfly effect is simply a complicated case of causality. So if we can follow cause and effect, then there is no randomness, and therefore, 100% possible to predict the future, assuming a cause-and-effect system, which the butterfly effect relies upon.
As a result, chaos theory is a load of garbage, since the fundamental principle it relies on (being the cause-and-effect system) negates its validity.
That's not to say that the universe isn't a chaotic system, as mathematically defined. But that's very different to what chaos theory is purporting, at least, according to your Wiki quote.
As you've said yourself, one event effects everything so by that understanding (I'm not disagreeing with it), it would inculde cause and effect in and of itself but not be limited to it.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. Cause and effect does not rely on the butterfly effect to work. The butterfly effect relies on cause and effect to work. The butterfly effect uses cause and effect to make differing predictions if the present was different.
At the current point in time, everything exists. The butterfly effect would be to say:
"If the weather was 22 degrees C instead of 21 degrees C, we would have a tornado in London tomorrow."
But that doesn't change the fact that the weather is actually 21 degrees C right now. It doesn't change the fact that everything exists right now, and that right now's events have been caused by historical events.
You can't 'butterfly effect' the present, because the past is fixed and non-variable, unless you can change the past, which you can't. So again, it's meaningless if you have perfect information about the present. What's the point in talking about 'what if's' when it doesn't exist?
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
interesting that the conversation from you guys turned intelligent as soon as kinesis left....
Um...nothing new has been said since he left.
The problem with Knesis was that he refused to hold up his end of the argument. It was like trying to play ping pong by yourself. Gorefiend on the other hand is actually hitting the ball back.
keep telling yourself that.
Hyper's right, nothing new has been said, except for productive discussion about points previously stated. I keep going back and requoting myself. Gorefiend is engaging in discussion. Kinesis simply said that he was right, and that we didn't know what we were talking about, getting mad at us, as you pointed out.
The thing is, Hyper has essentially presented the same argument as me, but presented differently, and much less verbosely. So if you agree with me at all, you're also agreeing with Hyper in a way too.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.