0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
We could probably talk about the magic of similarity (association by similarity) in the case of the butterfly and the Lorentz attractor.
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.
... a magical explanation ...
my proposal is
You have to use extraordinary methods, my proposal is a magical explanation and an appeal to mystery.
So the fact that the Lorentz attractor somewhat resembles a butterfly has no correlation to the butterfly effect.
Incidentally, the Lorenz attractor is a 3 D shape and it only looks "like a butterfly" from one direction.
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.
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?
Any Thoughts on the Domino Effect?
Quote from: Kryptid on 10/09/2023 17:46:22So 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.Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/09/2023 19:39:42Incidentally, 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
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.
It's OK. You didn't need to post that.We already know that you have no clue about science.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/09/2023 22:21:37It'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.
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.
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?