Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: cpu68 on 09/09/2023 20:08:54
-
Notes on chaos theory. E. Lorenz's butterfly, related to the issue of the butterfly effect, where the flapping of this insect's wings in Brazil can lead to a hurricane in Florida after a month, and the Lorenz attractor has a magical connection. The Lorenz attractor resembles a butterfly. The Lorenz attractor arises as a graph in three-dimensional phase space.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/6e/5a/to2fCLPr_o.png)
diagram. Lorenz Atrractor
Phase space is a space in which coordinates represent certain physical quantities, for example viscosity, temperature, size. We could probably talk about the magic of similarity (association by similarity) in the case of the butterfly and the Lorenz attractor. This is a confident proposal to solve the mystery of the relationship between these two objects, although the depth of the mystery of this relationship may still remain hidden. I will also add that the concept of mystery is a key concept for the entire cognitive process and seems to occupy a place above the rational mind, similarly, magical practices properly cleansed of all the burden of superstitions occupy a place above the rational mind. Mystery is everywhere.
I know from my own research experience that the most important concept for the entire theory of science is the process of scientific discovery. The physical model of the psychological process of discovery is the strike of lightning. Discovery is a mental flash, the manifestation of a higher intellectual process. Larger discoveries are usually a manifestation of a scientist's genius. Certain competences in the form of the knowledge accumulated by the scientist are required to be discovered.
A mystery can move from the level above reason to the area of discovery and the level of reason. What hides in darkness and mystery can sometimes come to light and discovery. This darkness can be illuminated by a flash of discovery. Thus, we can distinguish two most important cognitive orders, the order of mystery and the order of discovery.
Gregory Podgorniak, Poland, year 2023
about the author, My name is Gregory Podgorniak (brn. 01.1977, Szczecinek, West Pomerania, Poland). I am working on field of natural as well as social sciences. During philosophical studies at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan (1996-1999) I was actively act in student scientific organisation, got a scientific scholarship, and one from my articles titled Circulus vitiosus and fourfold petitio principii in the system of Descartes was published in Humanistic Drafts of Publishing House of Humaniora Foundation in Poznan, no. 6, 1998. Unfortunately certain fate events made impossible to me continuing studies to master's and later doctor's degree. Thence I was forced to be content only with a title of bachelor.
Thanks to deep and penetrating researchings I was able to establish indisputably some number of my past incarnations reaching of ancient period, these data are certain, these incarnations are: Auguste Comte (1798-1857) French philosopher and sociologist, Edme Mariotte (1620-1684) French physicist and meteorologist, Bodhidharma (5th or 6th century) buddhist patriarch, Aenesidemus (1 st century BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Arcesilaus (315-241 BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Gorgias (485-380 BC) Greek sophist.
email contact: podgorniakgre@gmail.com
-
magical connection
You might want to come back when you have a scientific connection.We could probably talk about the magic of similarity (association by similarity) in the case of the butterfly and the Lorentz attractor.
Do you mean the fact that the picture looks a bit like a butterfly?
The reason for that was that the original- "when an rat farts in Argentina..." was rejected by the publisher, so it was swapped for a butterfly flapping its wings.
OK, I made that up, but the flatulent rodent is just as valid as an illustration of the point.
It's just coincidence.
-
It's just coincidence.
One might think that explaining this convergence as the result of pure chance may be insufficient. The convergence remains and it may be impossible to explain it using ordinary methods. You have to use extraordinary methods, my proposal is a magical explanation and an appeal to mystery.
-
One might think that explaining this convergence as the result of pure chance may be insufficient.
Or one might not.
But unless you have evidence, the grown-ups with think it's a coincidence.The convergence remains and it may be impossible to explain it using ordinary methods.
I explained it. It's a coincidence.
... a magical explanation ...
A magical explanation is a contradiction in terms.
If you can explain it, then it's not magic.
my proposal is
Yuur "proposal" can not achieve anything, can it?
-
You have to use extraordinary methods, my proposal is a magical explanation and an appeal to mystery.
Proposing magic as an explanation for phenomena, besides being crazy, means that his thread has no place on any science site. The thread should be locked or at least moved to a section like Just Chat.
-
One might think that explaining this convergence as the result of pure chance may be insufficient.
As Bored Chemist pointed out, the name "butterfly effect" is completely arbitrary and has nothing specifically to do with butterflies. As such, it could have been named after any animal (or non-animal, even). So the fact that the Lorentz attractor somewhat resembles a butterfly has no correlation to the butterfly effect. It is, in fact, a coincidence.
-
Incidentally, the Lorenz attractor is a 3 D shape and it only looks "like a butterfly" from one direction.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/e/ea/A_Lorenz_system.ogv/A_Lorenz_system.ogv.360p.vp9.webm
-
So the fact that the Lorentz attractor somewhat resembles a butterfly has no correlation to the butterfly effect.
Lorenz used to say that "even the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas." So the butterfly effect clearly has something to do with butterflies.
Incidentally, the Lorenz attractor is a 3 D shape and it only looks "like a butterfly" from one direction.
Quote from the text Lorenz and the Butterfly Effect from the American Physical Society (APS) website: "It traced a distinctive double-spiral shape, aptly resembling a butterfly with its two wings."
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200301/history.cfm (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200301/history.cfm)
-
Lorentz used to say that "even the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas." So the butterfly effect clearly has something to do with butterflies.
LOL, pretty funny!
-
If butterfly's could start hurricane's, there would be a lot more hurricanes as the butterfly's badly outnumber the swirly windy big sky circle's. If were talking one butterfly, what's the difference in that butterfly's flight then other's? that he causes a hurricane?
-
If butterfly's could start hurricane's, there would be a lot more hurricanes as the butterfly's badly outnumber the swirly windy big sky circle's. If were talking one butterfly, what's the difference in that butterfly's flight then other's? that he causes a hurricane?
Just in case you guys aren't joking, the butterfly has nothing to do with it. The point is that for a chaotic process like the weather a very small disturbance can cause a big change. That's it, no magic about a butterfly.
-
@OP
Any Thoughts on the Domino Effect?
-
Any Thoughts on the Domino Effect?
I know dominos are not required for the domino effect... :)
-
So the fact that the Lorentz attractor somewhat resembles a butterfly has no correlation to the butterfly effect.
Lorentz used to say that "even the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas." So the butterfly effect clearly has something to do with butterflies.
Incidentally, the Lorenz attractor is a 3 D shape and it only looks "like a butterfly" from one direction.
Quote from the text Lorentz and the Butterfly Effect from the American Physical Society (APS) website: "It traced a distinctive double-spiral shape, aptly resembling a butterfly with its two wings."
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200301/history.cfm (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200301/history.cfm)
Are you an idiot, or do you realise that in the 1960s he wouldn't have had a computer that could plot- and a magazine wouldn't have published- a 3D image?
-
If butterfly's could start hurricane's, there would be a lot more hurricanes as the butterfly's badly outnumber the swirly windy big sky circle's. If were talking one butterfly, what's the difference in that butterfly's flight then other's? that he causes a hurricane?
It's OK. You didn't need to post that.
We already know that you have no clue about science.
-
Just in case you guys aren't joking, the butterfly has nothing to do with it. The point is that for a chaotic process like the weather a very small disturbance can cause a big change. That's it, no magic about a butterfly.
Chain reactions aren't really described by things that aren't chain reactions very well then. I wouldn't call the weather a chain reaction either unless you mean lightning which you don't.
-
Lorentz used to say that "even the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas." So the butterfly effect clearly has something to do with butterflies.
He arbitrarily decided to use a butterfly in his example, but he could have used anything else if he wanted to and it would have been just as relevant. Do you really think, for example, that a butterfly flapping its wings could lead to a hurricane but no other animal flapping its wings could do that? Heck, a human sneeze could influence the weather just as much.
-
It's OK. You didn't need to post that.
We already know that you have no clue about science.
Never will I ever worship the nonsense you claim to back your 'intelligence'. Lighten up D saur.
-
It's OK. You didn't need to post that.
We already know that you have no clue about science.
Never will I ever worship the nonsense you claim to back your 'intelligence'. Lighten up D saur.
You misunderstand the butterfly effect. It doesn't say that there is a direct correlation between butterflies and the formation of hurricanes. It is about the cause-and-effect relationships in very complex systems being unpredictable. Tiny changes in the initial state of a system can cause very large changes in its final state. A butterfly may cause a hurricane to form, or it may prevent one from forming, or it may cause a tornado or snowstorm instead.
-
If butterfly's could start hurricane's, there would be a lot more hurricanes as the butterfly's badly outnumber the swirly windy big sky circle's. If were talking one butterfly, what's the difference in that butterfly's flight then other's? that he causes a hurricane?
I would explain it this way: not every butterfly will cause a hurricane, but it can only cause one under certain conditions. Only very rarely does one of all the butterflies cause a hurricane. But thank you for trying to start an interesting discussion.
He arbitrarily decided to use a butterfly in his example, but he could have used anything else if he wanted to and it would have been just as relevant.
But the butterfly reflects the idea of small disturbances of initial conditions too well for its convergence with the Lorentz attractor to be just a coincidence.
Any Thoughts on the Domino Effect?
Domino effect - a situation in which one event triggers a whole series of events that follow one another and result from each other
Are you an idiot, or do you realise that in the 1960s he wouldn't have had a computer that could plot- and a magazine wouldn't have published- a 3D image?
Who exactly is the idiot here? You'd have to be blind or an idiot not to see the similarity between a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor, whether it's 2D or 3D doesn't matter.
-
Who exactly is the idiot here?
The one who thinks this looks like a butterfly
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
But the butterfly reflects the idea of small disturbances of initial conditions too well for its convergence with the Lorentz attractor to be just a coincidence.
There is no convergence.
-
But the butterfly reflects the idea of small disturbances of initial conditions too well for its convergence with the Lorentz attractor to be just a coincidence.
Not any better than any other small, flying animal does. If Lorentz had called it the "sparrow effect", we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. I don't see what your thread has to do with science.
-
I don't see what your thread has to do with science.
The problem of the convergence of a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor is a science. They can even be considered fundamental to chaos theory, just as the butterfly effect is a fundamental concept to this theory. However, explaining this convergence based on typical methods may fail, I propose using a different class of explanation methods.
-
The problem of the convergence of a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor is a science
No, that is nonsense.
They can even be considered fundamental to chaos theory, just as the butterfly effect is a fundamental concept to this theory.
No, if the analogy of the butterfly was never introduced it would make no difference at all to chaos theory.
I don't see what your thread has to do with science.
The problem of the convergence of a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor is a science. They can even be considered fundamental to chaos theory, just as the butterfly effect is a fundamental concept to this theory. However, explaining this convergence based on typical methods may fail, I propose using a different class of explanation methods.
There is nothing to explain.
This will freak you out, "how come the Lorentz attractor looks like the face of a barred owl??" How can we explain the convergence of owls and the Lorentz attractor?
-
The problem of the convergence of a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor is a science.
They are not convergent.
-
However, explaining this convergence based on typical methods may fail,
The explanation is simple; it's not real- the fact that it looks a bit like a butterfly from one angle is a coincidence.
No need to dream up a different class of explanation methods.
-
The problem of the convergence of a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor is a science.
No, it isn't. Lorentz could have named it after quite literally any small disturbance. He didn't have to use a butterfly. That means it's a coincidence. Plain and simple.
If you claim that what you are doing is science, then tell us how to test your claims in a falsifiable manner.
-
I know from my own research experience that the most important concept for the entire theory of science is the process of scientific discovery. The physical model of the psychological process of discovery is the strike of lightning. Discovery is a mental flash, the manifestation of a higher intellectual process. Larger discoveries are usually a manifestation of a scientist's genius. Certain competences in the form of the knowledge accumulated by the scientist are required to be discovered.
A mystery can move from the level above reason to the area of discovery and the level of reason. What hides in darkness and mystery can sometimes come to light and discovery. This darkness can be illuminated by a flash of discovery.
-
If you claim that what you are doing is science, then tell us how to test your claims in a falsifiable manner.
-
This may be nitpicking but i'll persevere, in the hope some good may arise from this thread, however small. The man's name is LORENZ and not LORENTZ. BC seems to be the only one who got it correct.
-
The man's name is LORENZ and not LORENTZ
You are of course right. Thank you for drawing attention to this circumstance.
-
This may be nitpicking but i'll persevere, in the hope some good may arise from this thread, however small. The man's name is LORENZ and not LORENTZ. BC seems to be the only one who got it correct.
Well, I guess that answers my question as to whether or not this was the same Lorentz that Lorentz contraction was named after...
-
If the circumstances are right, one tiny sperm can cause a 200 pound idiot with his finger on a nuclear button. No need for lepidoptera, but the mystery is why anyone would vote for him.
-
If the circumstances are right, one tiny sperm can cause a 200 pound idiot with his finger on a nuclear button. No need for lepidoptera, but the mystery is why anyone would vote for him.
One possibility is that he wrote absurd lies on the side of a bus, and people believed it.
-
Wrong target. BJ was selected by the Parliamentary Conservative Party, not the electorate in general, and isn't an idiot. DT, on the other hand, was democratically elected and meets both criteria.
-
Johnson was effectively elected in 2019 in a general election.
I don't think Trump is an idiot. Maybe not very bright, but clever enough to manipulate people.
I haven'y bothered to weigh either of them
-
Typically, if someone drags politics into a science discussion I find that very annoying. Unfortunately, this thread is not really about science and it isn't very interesting. The sad truth is the discussion about British politics is more interesting than this pseudoscientific thread.... :(
Edit: On further reflection I did find the idea that the 'butterfly effect' was actually about butterflies and not about small perturbations to be quite entertaining.
-
Johnson was effectively elected in 2019 in a general election.
Thus setting aside 400 years of constitutional democracy.