Chaos is almost always defined as "disorder" or "randomness" the Webster definition is not the "go-to definition outside of physics" it's the exception to the rule. Which they even choose to elaborate on and correct in their little dictionary. No reasonable person would see chaos inherently being bound to an idea of things being governed and controlled.

I could care less if I'm right or wrong in this little meme thread, what I care about is the truth, trying to snake yourself out of someone correcting you is pathetic.

Turncoat stated: source post

No really, I meant that version of "chaos" from that being the go-to definition outside of physics from areas like pop culture and history, and I don't see how that's difficult to grasp from the context of what was typed even after the clarification, but I see how badly you need this to feel like some sort of victory so I'll let you have this one. 

Most areas of science are admittedly not my strongsuit, but these views still make sense to me on a conceptually philisophical level. These are merely beliefs based on my observations and ruminations that can be subject to change when confronted with superior evidence. 

History, philosophy, pop culture... these are not Cadavers strongsuit, and therefore he will not acknowledge their validity, even within their own context.  Science is what he knows.  It validates him and makes him feel intelligent.  Therefore the laymans definition of ''chaos'' cannot possibly be the subject of the statement in question, even when clarified to an extreme by the speaker, because it doesn't allow him ample room to show off and soothe his insecurities.

Cadaver stated: source post

Chaos is almost always defined as "disorder" or "randomness" the Webster definition is not the "go-to definition outside of physics" it's the exception to the rule.

That... is the Webster definition. The idea of chaos is random while chaos theory is the idea that it's not. Disorder/Randomness is the meaning that supposedly dates back to the 15th century.

No reasonable person would see chaos inherently being bound to an idea of things being governed and controlled.

...the physics one sort of does in a way, doesn't it? The initial conditions can be at least:

"behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions."

With better understanding and tools it'd not appear random. Theory, physics, states the appearance of it while the word itself isn't about appearances.

I could care less if I'm right or wrong in this little meme thread,

It looks like you do.

what I care about is the truth, trying to snake yourself out of someone correcting you is pathetic.

You really desire this narrative. What has you so sure that this is the case when I've been corrected before without it going this sort of direction?

i'm pretty sure everyone wants to get their ego stroked one way or the other. i forced two people to make threads for me

God damn it guys. This is my thread and it was a simple question. I'm taking it back from you all. :p

"You seem very confused, our best models of reality, and by extension models that forward determinism and predict the future rely on chaos theory."

According to what?

"Discussing determinism vs free-will is as far away from real science as you will get and is more the realm of philosophers and other pseudo-scientists."

How?

We are still on topic though. :p

Buttered Toast stated: source post

> Edit

> Erase

> Replace

> Sigh

Aw! I read your original post earlier and I really appreciated what you had to say.  Sorry you deleted it. :(

Turncoat stated: source post

Where would I even start for imagining that? I'd have to either be blind enough to believe it or deific enough to make it so. 

From the looks of things I can't drop it, and I honestly don't know where I'd go even with the power needed to do so. I don't have much when it comes to a sense of direction anymore, as I can't even say what it is that I really want. 

So 'entropy' was mentioned in relation to you but when I first read your reply, I thought apathy. What is it YOU want for just you? 

...the physics one sort of does in a way, doesn't it? The initial conditions can be at least:

"behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions."

With better understanding and tools it'd not appear random. Theory, physics, states the appearance of it while the word itself isn't about appearances.

Wrong, chaos in no definition but the Webster one (which like I said they in their elaborated version clearly use a more appropriate one) implies a disconnect between a governing force and outcome. Chaos even to the lay and uneducated in physics or math doesn't imply this, so assuming people would when reading your post think "hey this guy is not using the official definition or the most common one but rather an obscure and faulty one" is retarded. When someone claims chaos is not real it's plain wrong.