| |
|
How aboutt this:
Let's look at some Chaos and Complexity theory.
I'm no expert, so I'm going to start with some somehwat infantile (in that I couldn't demonstrate these mathematically if I wanted to, right now) descriptions and comparisons that'll help me get across'd what I'm trying to say.
A lot of this is ruthlessly plagiarized from Skeptic magazine volume 8.
Complexity Theory: "Per Bak's Sand Pile"
When you originally start building a pile of sand, the behaviour of the grains of sand as they are "put" into the pile can be predicted bs equations resulting from interactions between traits of the individual constituent identities of the sand pile.
In other words, standard and simplistic equations will yield the answers representing the consequences of any given behaviour.
Once the pile reaches a critical point -- towards the pyramid -- avalanches begin to occur. These avalanches cannot be described by the same equations that describe the behaviours of individual grains and their interactions.
That, I think, it was makes a system complex. When, in a way, the whole becomes greater than the sum of it's parts. That describes complexity. You can't describe the overall behaviour by amassing descriptions of the behaviours of constituent parts.
There are two kinds of Chaos:
"True" chaos is described as genuine 'stochastic' fluctuation. Not only unpredictable, but showing no trend.
"Deterministic" chaos is described as ostensibly chaotic behaviour that, over time, seems loosely connected to an underlying pattern.
Most scientists working on Chaos problems are concerned, at this point, with the determinant factor seperating the two.
You do this by finding the "Attractor".
There are "fixed-point" and "strange" attractors.
Chaos theory most accurately describes traits of physics and non-linear mathematics.
Complexity theory's most common and popular meme is the classic butterfly-cascade scenario: A butterfly flapping it's wings in Brazil can create a tornado in Texas (or Beijing).
The two sometimes get confused.
So, now that I've rambled endlessly with a somewhat sad mishmash of my own words and those of article's author, I guess I'll try and get to the point.
I have a feeling that "random" behaviour and "deterministic behaviour" are not really that different. I think where Chaos and Complexity theory are really going, is, a holistic understanding of the universe. I think these equations are telling us that there's no difference between free will and destiny, randomness and "deterministic chaos". The scientists are looking for a red herring. And I think the theory itself says it all, right there.
Perhaps destiny looks terribly simple when you're looking at the behaviour of those original grains of sand -- when you're measuring the constituent interactions, able to use the equations to make accurate predictions.
However, at a point, we start getting something that looks like Complexity, Chaotic behaviour, and yet strangely predictable consequence -- all in one.
See, we don't know when it's going to happen. We just know it will. And we can't figure out when until it's happened, because the equations governing that particular piece of it all are no longer derived from individual interactions. The casaul chain breaks but continues -- in that a predictable event has occured, but we can no longer predict all aspects of the event.
You can certainly take inferrences from the proceedings, after the fact. But is it deterministic, or not? Or maybe the whole point is that either/or conceptualization doesn't really describe the universe?
Does that make any sense?
[ 26-10-2001: Message edited by: Frances ] |
|
|
