do any philosophers accept chaos theory ?

[chaz wyman]

Chaz, just search online, as you do, and find the your answer. Then pawn which ever version of the definition you want, and apply.

You calling me an 'opinion' is more evidence of your stupidity.

[puto]

Chaz, you are a disgrace for Philosophy (of whatever kind you choose.)) You don't know definitions, and when you do you pawn them off as your own (not even knowing what they mean.)) I feel sorry for people like you as you will be going around being a "bully," and not even know what you are talking about, but just making yourself look more of the "'fool.''"

[Arising_uk]

Hi JP,

that so many factors are at play, that one can not predict the future,the past or ever really know the present

Its not even that there are so many factors, as the three-magnet problem shows, but the point of 'Chaos Theory' is exactly that Maths has now at begun to get a grip upon certain complex phenomena that were thought to be unmodelable(?) and is able to better predict the behaviour of such things, e.g. better weather prediction models have been developed, as they've realised that if they run many simulations from the initial readings they can find 'strange attractors' across the models.

[JasonPalmer]

Arising_uk

[chaz wyman]

Chaz, you are a disgrace for Philosophy (of whatever kind you choose.)) You don't know definitions, and when you do you pawn them off as your own (not even knowing what they mean.)) I feel sorry for people like you as you will be going around being a "bully," and not even know what you are talking about, but just making yourself look more of the "'fool.''"

This is a confused bunch of gibberish, signifying nothing.

Is this your response to my asking you why you called me an "opinion"? That is quite laughable actually. Do you actually know what it means?
Is English not your first language?

The prepositional word in the first sentence ought to be 'to', and not 'for'; and you have used double parenthesis after the sentence which is wrong. This mistake you also make in the following sentence without any indication where the parenthesis is supposed to start.
On the issue of content, I have never once "pawned off" a definition as my own, and any fool can look up a definition, but it takes a mind to unpack the assumptions inherent in definitions to reveal the semiotic significance of them. If you had done any philosophy you might have realised that much of it is concerned to understand the use of words. Wittgenstein and Chomsky are valuable here.
It is of some interest to me that there are a couple of people on this Forum that, like yourself, tend to cover for their own lack of intelligence by accusing others of being fools. I'm not in a position to judge whether or not you are a real fool, or just pretending to be one, as you basically have very little to offer, and tend to say nothing whatever.

[puto]

Chaz, you have not only shown what you know about Philosophy, but writing also. You are a joke.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz, you have not only shown what you know about Philosophy, but writing also. You are a joke.

Thank you for your consideration.

I look forward to your superior philosophical outlook.
So - what do you think of the question at the top of the thread?