Chaos cannot exist.
Everything in the universe is sequential logical and only operates linearly, as does entropy. It is always in one line: forward. Chaos would require the universe to have to exist at all points in time in every physically/metaphysically possible way.
entropy is chaos, negro
Think before you speak.
> Chaos would require the universe to have to exist at all points in time in every physically/metaphysically possible way.
It does.
But that doesn't really make it more chaotic, it makes it less chaotic. Everything that will happen exists from one perspective or another. Particles in motion take every possible path via superposition - that's why your glasses work.
"Chaos" is relative anyways. If unpredictability by humans is "chaos", then the universe contains practically infinite chaos. If disorganization is chaos, same, and if entropy is chaos, same again. Even if causality violations are thought of as chaos, then yes, there's nearly no end to the chaos.
But if chaos is defined as a complete abandonment of all explanation where all things are forever inexplicable from any perspective, fictional or otherwise, then, yes, there is no chaos.
Everything that exists has always existed.
Therefore, everything that exists is apart of a great chain of logical mathematics that has been continually computed since the dawn of time, and before that as well.
Since the universe is ordered sequentially, then chaos is merely a side-effect of order with measurements that are hard to predict. Just like luck and randomness. They don't exist unto themselves, rather they exist because of what we assign to them.
how are you defining order and chaos? if you are saying order is causal dependency then well chaos is still a deterministic process. i think the only differences about things like chaotic and complex systems is that you are looking at things which are too difficult/intractable/hidden to observe and predict. If you're saying chaos doesnt really exist it depends on your definition and you're right its relative to our ability to observe the system in a sense. i dont think your definition of chaos is correct as in abandonment of all explanation so im not sure you're being relevant. also entropy isn't linear. 2nd law is purely statistical. product of complex non-linear interactions,
>speak
>on a text based image board
who's the idiot now stupid checkmate
Well, suffice to say, chaos at large isn't objective, but a matter of opinion. One can certainly say a system is more complex or less predictable, I suppose, but "true chaos" isn't something that happens in the universe, no. On the other hand, you do reach several points where it's impossible to predict the outcome while trapped within a single frame of time and existing inside of that universe using the physical tools it makes available. From some hypothetical omniscient perspective, this is not chaos, but from our limited human perspective, it most certainly is. There are some things we will simply never be physically capable of accurately predicting.
Then you get into crap like the hearts of quasars, singularities, and shit you can't really say much of anything about, but we're /x/ enough already.
>Everything that exists has always existed.
Speaking in the broadest terms possible, maybe, but it goes beyond that when using those terms: everything that will exist, already exists.
>Since the universe is ordered sequentially
This is not necessarily true, things can affect each other "out of order" and different observers can witness events in different orders. So, the sequentiality, is largely a matter of perspective.
I mean in terms of the objective universe.
Heat, light, gravity, the laws of physics, thermodynamics etc is almost code-like in their behaviour (x exists so something must have programmed x to have their properties) and so everything that exists must logically have a purpose or at the very least - a reason to exist.
As chaos serves no purpose, then it can't exist in the realm of objectivity as there are no ways to define it.
in a sense your post might still be irrelevant because maybe "chaos theory" shares the term chaos which has its meaning in our everyday sense but is operationalised differently in science. you saying chaos doesn't really exist might just be criticising or making an observation on something that science didn't actually make in the first place
You know nothing of which you speak
Eh... "Objective" and "Purpose" are mutually exclusive terms. Humans assign purpose - without them, things are just there. Objectively entails existing outside of human subjectivity, and even things created by humans for specific functions don't acquire purpose without humans to declare it. (At least not until we invent an AI or something.)
True chaos could exist objectively, it just doesn't, near as we can tell. Maybe you mean "logically"... True chaos would be beyond logical explanation, so yeah, it can't exist logically, though one could simply have it exist, and say it is beyond logical explanation. Some objects that exist in the universe do defy logical analysis in that fashion, in that the only thing you can say about them is that they exist and fit their unique categories. An example would be singularities - you can say where one is and what caused it, but beyond that, it defies all further analysis.
i dont think chaos in your sense can exist in the natural world because if you did see chaos in the natural world then thats like saying you wouldnt be able to explain how that system got to that state (e.g. you couldnt link it to cosmogenesis, all the stages people hypothesise in the big bang etc) so wouldnt it just break laws of physics in a sense?
Basically what I was getting at - it's not the lack of purpose, but the lack of logical explanation. Not that there aren't certain objects in the universe that push the envelope, and bend physics to such the degree where we can no longer describe them and they begin practically writing their own laws, but there's at least a procedural explanation as to how such objects came to be, and their effects on the universe around them are predictable.
Then again, at the quantum level, there are also things that are much more common that resist all prediction by their very nature.
Shit be weird yo.
Again, in cases where things are humanly impossible to predict, to the degree where the very laws of physics makes it impossible, is that not chaos? Even if some omniscient mind working from outside time and the universe itself that could nonetheless magically observe without interaction, could make the prediction accurately, does not the fact that no such mind exists, so far as we can tell, mean that things that are forever beyond our accurate prediction, and only fall into a range of probability, are chaotic?
It all seems rather subjective - in addition to there being degrees of chaos, things are also more or less chaotic from different perspectives.
So in the end, I think you can only say "chaos cannot exist" when using the broadest possible and narrowest possible definitions of "chaos".
I hate these fucking threads.
Chaos just means that you can not approximately determine the future state of a system given approximate measurements of the current or past states. Chaos doesn't need to be non deterministic, and actually a lot of problems in chaos theory are deterministic. That's the definition, it's what it means because it's defined to mean that. I'm tired of people taking word shits all over this board with pseudo-intellectual nonsense where they redefine words to mean what they want to make themselves sound deep. You aren't deep or smart please fuck off and die.
>not being a determinist
if everything is sequential, how can two things exist at the same time?
DESU, when he claimed, "Chaos cannot exist. Everything in the universe..." I didn't think he was speaking of chaos in the mathematical sense, but in the philosophical, metaphysical, or religious sense. (Plus the whole line, "Chaos cannot exist!", sounds like something a superhero would say, not a mathematician.)
Really, there's so many /x/ threads on Veeky Forums, I've gotten into the bad habit of encouraging them just for the sake of killing time, and forgetting to sage.
>Chaos cannot exist.
It doesn't.
>Everything in the universe is sequential logical and only operates linearly
Only within one timeline within one particular sequence of measured possibilities.
>It is always in one line: forward.
No, you can "move" in any existing dimension, including time.
>Chaos would require the universe to have to exist at all points in time in every physically/metaphysically possible way.
But it does.
Ah yes, rocks can time-travel. Of course.
Not him, but actually, they can, relative to other reference points, like everything else.
It can for you.
>Bazooper.
Time is relative. The properties are skewed depending on gravity and mass. You can only bend time, not travel backwards or forwards.
No, you can actually end up going backwards relative to other frames, and different frames may disagree as to the order you did things when observing you, and later communicating their observations with one another.
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.." is kind of an in-joke.
Not that the rock notices from its own frame.
>No, you can actually end up going backwards relative to other frames, and different frames may disagree as to the order you did things when observing you, and later communicating their observations with one another.
Frames? What are you talking about? Time exists as a continuous line with no breaks and no skips. It is one continuous ethereal line of code that is affected by gravity and mass.
>Not that the rock notices from its own frame.
Are you saying that time exists only when it's observed?
Read this lecture by Hawking and try again:
Reference frames... A photon, for instance, experiences no passage of time from its own reference frame. A satellite in orbit experiences a slightly faster progression of time than someone on the ground, etc.
Well rocks don't notice anything in general, but if it was instead a person, it wouldn't notice the discrepancy the other two later argue over.
>Frames? What are you talking about?
See >Time exists as a continuous line with no breaks and no skips.
No, it doesn't. It exists as lots of different lines operating relative to one another, with each point in space each having its own, sometimes radically different experience of time, depending on their positions, relative speed, and relative direction.
If you, for instance, had a magical vision of infinite distance, and there was no speed of light problem involved, and walked down the road while looking at a planet in another galaxy, some uncountable trillions of light years away, you would see time there move in one direction, but if you slightly changed the direction you were walking, while still observing that distant planet with your magic vision, you might see its future, or its past, depending on your relative momentum.
SR is one those "weird but true" things. The past and future already exist, it's just a matter of where you are observing them from.
>If you, for instance, had a magical vision of infinite distance, and there was no speed of light problem involved, and walked down the road while looking at a planet in another galaxy, some uncountable trillions of light years away, you would see time there move in one direction, but if you slightly changed the direction you were walking, while still observing that distant planet with your magic vision, you might see its future, or its past, depending on your relative momentum.
I hate hypothesizing. You're not seeing back in time. You're seeing a warped shadow. An illusion of the mind. You can see the light from suns that have been non existent for millions of years. Does the sun still exist? No. If you travel to the sun will it exist? No.
The universe moves in relativity but information is not relative - its causative.
the frames thing is actually is one of the big parts of einsteins theory. he had a thought experiment about a train traveling at the speed of light or something like that and then two simultaneous lightning strikes and depending on the relation of the train to the two lightning strikes the observer would percieve them happening simultaneously or sequentially. probs explained it completely wrong but there.
Bleh, not getting the point... I suppose trying to take light out of the equation of sight is asking a bit much. Yes, there limits to the rate of causality that we generally refer to as the speed of light that prevent observation of this phenomenon, but that doesn't change the fact that it's nonetheless true, that every time you make a left turn on a road, your flow of time has likely reversed relative to some object on the far end of the universe. In space-time, movement and time are irrecoverably linked, and movement is relative from point to point with no universal reference. This doesn't mean squat to individuals over short distances for objects in the same gravity well, at everyday human experienceable speeds, but over extremely long distances and/or extreme speeds and between many objects, it can take something that seems like a nice and even straight line to each individual experiencing it, and turns into into a pretzel when it comes to comparing some against others.
I suppose it's kinda like pic related. In that, from the surface of the Earth, when you watch the movement of planets in the sky, they wander in all sorts of strange meandering patterns, despite the fact that, from a more distant perspective, they orbit in consistent circles around the sun, save in this case, it's kinda reversed, and it's not an illusion - it has actual consequences, such as the twin paradox, and having to adjust the timers on satellites to make up for the time dilation effects to keep your GPS from going off by a few thousand miles a week.
It flies in face of common sense as it is beyond common experience - but the more you look into the physics universe, the more you'll find that common sense hasn't prepared us to analyze it. Sadly, the reaction a lot of people have to this experience is to deny it is real, regardless of the evidence you give them, but, obviously, perhaps pic related, as that's also true of things as simple as heliocentrism.
>It flies in face of common sense as it is beyond common experience
only for a serious brainlet and im not even meming . sure it's a tad counter-intuitive at first but anything more than that, no, wow
anyone could figure that shit out if they gave it the thought
If time traveling at different rates for different observers isn't beyond common experience and against common sense, I don't know what is.
Never mind the idea of a particle being everywhere at once, taking every possible path it can take, interfering with itself in the process, sometimes even being interfered with by its future self, and this all having consequences as to where it goes.
...and that has consequences for stuff we experience every day, even if we don't check our phone's map:
youtube.com
>If time traveling at different rates for different observers isn't beyond common experience and against common sense
no that is beyond sense, plain and simple like
did you think by mashing words and concepts together somehow you would eventually make sense
some of the things you say are real, but not all of them
>some of the things you say are real, but not all of them
Well, you better be more specific as to which you think are and which you think aren't, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the things I put forth come up as misnomers due to being incomplete or poorly explained, and I am willing to attempt to clarify or correct as required, but that particular quote is most definitely true, and fairly simple to prove.
I'm not here to annotate your special form of schizophrenia, im just pointing out a cuckoo egg in the nest.
Also pic related.
I guess they haven't taught this in whatever school you're out of for the summer yet.
Assuming the quote you made is the fundamental concept that you're having an issue with:
astronomy.ohio-state.edu
en.wikipedia.org
Or, if you prefer something with less reading:
youtube.com
>Chaos would require the universe to have to exist at all points in time in every physically/metaphysically possible way.
you sound like a greek philosopher, with other words. cringey
tfw sometime putting up with all the BS on 4chinz is worth it cuz u read a thread like this and just heart.