Yes that's what I remember as well. Thing is that using Chaos theory may explain a lot in neuropsych - neural development for instance as well as memory encoding. Time to crack the books again I guess.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chaos theory is sort of a superset that has a mathematics known as > Nonlinear Dynamics at its core. Linear systems are the classical stuff > you study in math classes. They are functions that are continuous > (they don't have holes in them), they are predictable (you plug in x = > 5 and you get f(5) = 10 out), etc. Nonlinear systems are much more > tricky to analyze. A lot of times they involve feedback loops, where > the current state of the system depends on the previous state of the > system, not just a raw input from the outside. They usually aren't > continuous functions and a lot of our traditional mathematical tools > just don't work with non-linear systems. > > Some of the characteristics of what you'd call a chaotic system include: > > High sensitivity to initial conditions. There are a lot of boundaries > in nonlinear systems that send things veering off drastically in one > way or another. So if you start with a value of 1 you might end up > with most of your subsequent points over on the right hand side of the > graph but if you start with a value of 1.1 you might end up with most > of your subsequent points over on the left hand side of the graph. > > Self similarity. Fractals, for instance, have a high degree of > self-similarity. That means that whatever level you look at a graph, > the part you see will look like the whole graph, in miniature. > > Areas of stability in the midst of randomness. This is the notion of > an "attractor" which is a part of a graph that has stable circuits in > it. It might go 3, 5, 8, 3, 5, 8, etc. If you started at 3.5 it might > go 3.5, 5.2, 8, 3, 5, 8, etc but then if you started at 4, it would > veer off and do 4, 193, -43, -45, 16, etc randomly. > > So, yeah, Chaos Theory as a big overarching thing is kind of > wishy-washy (it depends on who you are talking to) but it usually > means that there are a lot of feedback loops involved, that there is a > lot of randomness but that the randomness can be described/bounded > even though it can't be predicted for a given point, that there are > areas of stability and areas of non-stability and that there is a > strong sense of scale where details emerge through different scales > and that little bits look a lot like the whole. > > Not sure if that whole bit helped or not, it can be hard to describe > without equations :) Still, nonlinear dynamics is one of the coolest > math classes I've ever taken. Neat stuff. > > Judah > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Sisk, Kris <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Doesn't chaos theory boil down, in really really really simplistic terms, to >> chaos is order and vice versa? I haven't really studied it, but that's the >> impression I've gotten. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:39 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Talking about the religious right... >> >> >> I've been struggling trying to understand Chaos theory for the last >> several years. If I understand it correctly (to those more >> mathematically inclined on the list please correct me if I'm wrong >> here), you don't need someone to be driving the bus. >> >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Scott Stewart >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> makes sense to me... of course I've been believing all along that >>> science and religion (even *gasp* evolution) can go along quite nicely >>> with each other, especially when religious folks realize that >>> omnipotence means "can do anything anytime anywhere" >>> >>> IMHO there's too much order in the "chaos" for someone to *not* be >>> driving the bus.. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Eric Roberts >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Actually, according to a display from the MIT slides (I think that was >>>> posted here...if not, I can post the link), they are saying 6,000 years >>>> ago... >>>> >>>> My take on all this is as follows. God is supposed to be all seeing and >>>> all >>>> knowing, yada yada yada... So wouldn't it stand to reason that God created >>>> the lightning strike in that protoplasmic pool that caused the proteins to >>>> combine to form the first dna fragments that joined to form the first >>>> single >>>> celled organisms that eventually evolved into us and all the other life ion >>>> this planet knowing exactly what was going to happen. He wanted to enjoy >>>> the ride and watch things evolve...there were a few times he didn't like >>>> the >>>> direction they were going so he throws in a curve ball from time to time to >>>> destroy life or almost destroy it so it can start again. That makes more >>>> sense than creating something out of nothing. His "let there be light" was >>>> really the big bang that started it all. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: G Money [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:23 PM >>>> To: cf-community >>>> Subject: Re: Talking about the religious right... >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Sisk, Kris <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bah. I share that faith and you'd never catch me saying something so >>>>> ridiculous. Believing that God created the world does NOT require the >>>>> installation of an off switch in your brain. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Judging from your posts on this list....no, you don't share their faith. >>>> Their faith goes way beyond what you believe. Fundamentalists and >>>> literalists don't just believe that "God created life". They believe in the >>>> biblical creation story as written....that it occurred 10,000 years >>>> ago....that dinosaurs existed with humans in a garden of eden...etc. etc. >>>> >>>> You don't share their faith. You share a small part of it....a part that >>>> does not require you to a lead a life of willful ignorance. >>>> >>>> I share that same part of faith, incidentally. I believe that God created >>>> life. Although, as I'm making my way through Hawking's "The Grand Design", >>>> i >>>> may be changing that soon :) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Glittering prizes and endless compromises >>>> Shatter the illusion of integrity >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:328329 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
