Philosophy Now Forum

I keep coming back to chaos theory, from mathematics, and 'cause and effect' etc. etc.

Do any philosophers base their writings on chaos theory, it seems pretty new, and hard to accept, for most people, so have not heard of anyone who has in in their great philosophy.

please advise

I wander upon alpine style mountain tops, between caves, in solitude, looking for scraps, for someone whose intellect has gone before me, to save me time.

thus spake me

sounds awfully Dionysian ...

check out Nietzsche's birth of tragedy

-Imp

What do you mean by 'chaos theory'?

There are no problems with this idea being acceptable to philosophy.
It is a deterministic theory which establishes that predictability is not easy.
Thus it stands in support of a determinist position against those who would attack it on grounds of the difficulties of prediction and the assertion of pure randomness.

Impenitent wrote:sounds awfully Dionysian ...

check out Nietzsche's birth of tragedy

-Imp

No it does not!
It sounds nothing at all like it.
Nietzsche would turn in his grave at such a banal association.

chaz wyman wrote:

Impenitent wrote:sounds awfully Dionysian ...

check out Nietzsche's birth of tragedy

-Imp

No it does not!
It sounds nothing at all like it.
Nietzsche would turn in his grave at such a banal association.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian ... .27s_usage

-Imp

Arising_uk wrote:What do you mean by 'chaos theory'?

http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html

Impenitent wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Impenitent wrote:sounds awfully Dionysian ...

check out Nietzsche's birth of tragedy

-Imp

No it does not!
It sounds nothing at all like it.
Nietzsche would turn in his grave at such a banal association.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian ... .27s_usage

-Imp

I'm way ahead of you.
What do YOU think makes this relevant?

chaz wyman wrote:Thus it stands in support of a determinist position against those who would attack it on grounds of the difficulties of prediction and the assertion of pure randomness.

Other than offering an excuse to hand-wave, how does chaos theory support realism about determinism?

I can see that chaz commented but he is in my foes, and hence, his comments hidden from me

JasonPalmer wrote:I can see that chaz commented but he is in my foes, and hence, his comments hidden from me

More fool you then.
You may continue to hide behind your fear, but you don't get Brownie points for chipping up and telling people you are cowering behind the 'ignore' facility.

JasonPalmer wrote:http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html

No, I said what do you mean by it? I understand that its finding mathematical algorithms for previously thought unsolvable complexity in both the real and mathematical worlds.

JasonPalmer wrote:
http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html

Is this an argument?

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

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

Science thrives on reducing certain factors to manageable limits within experimental conditions to more easily predict and retrodict chains of cause and effect. It is by this method that we can rely on deterministic principles, and by extension come to realise the massive complexity that despite determinism makes it so hard to understand events.