82,891
edits
Butterfly effect: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
The systems are [[Path-dependent|''path''-dependent]], not ''initial-condition''-dependent. The longer the the system continues the more dependent the system will be on the infinity of subsequently intervening causes. | The systems are [[Path-dependent|''path''-dependent]], not ''initial-condition''-dependent. The longer the the system continues the more dependent the system will be on the infinity of subsequently intervening causes. | ||
And there is another thing: unless the pendulums have perpetual motion | And there is another thing: unless the pendulums have perpetual motion<ref>Impossible, of course.</ref> or are ''powered'' they will, in a short time period, come to rest. | ||
For a complexity theorist, the butterfly’s wing [[metaphor]] makes the point not that hurricanes ''can'' be reduced to their infinitesimal operating causes and therefore predicted, but that they ''cannot''. These systems are so [[complex]] — so ''ontologically indeterminate'' — that it is ''theoretically'' impossible to predict how they will behave. | Thanks to friction, loss of heat to entropy, all pendulums, and all other things in the Cosmos, tend to rest. Their initial conditions are, ultimately, irrelevant. Over time, then, even insoluble mathematical operations converge. We can see this [[Evolution by natural selection|path dependency]] to be [[Signal-to-noise ratio|''noise'']]. The signal, as signals always do, becomes clearer over time. However you start a pendulum — however different its configuration, size, weight or jointedness — it ''will end up in [[Entropy|entropic]] rest''. | ||
For a complexity theorist, the butterfly’s wing [[metaphor]] makes the point not that hurricanes ''can'' be reduced to their infinitesimal operating causes and therefore predicted, but that they ''cannot''. These systems are so [[complex]] — so ''[[Ontology|ontologically]] indeterminate'' — that it is ''theoretically'' impossible, and not just ''practically'' impossible, to predict how they will behave. | |||
Butterfly wing-flaps are discrete independent events. Unless you hypothesise some kind of spooky quantum butterfly entanglement, one butterfly flapping its wings will not make more or less likely another butterfly’s decision to do the same, let alone any of the other environmental factors that might cause a tropical storm. | Butterfly wing-flaps are discrete independent events. Unless you hypothesise some kind of spooky quantum butterfly entanglement, one butterfly flapping its wings will not make more or less likely another butterfly’s decision to do the same, let alone any of the other environmental factors that might cause a tropical storm. | ||