LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIf the tree fell in the middle of a forest and nobody was there to witness it, did it fell?
August 6th, 2007, 01:55 AM
If the tree fell in the middle of a forest and nobody was there to witness it, did it fell?
August 6th, 2007, 05:33 AM
No. Because the ending of that sentence is worded incorrectly. ",,,dit it fell?" should be: "...did it fall."Originally Posted by youdiehard
And the answer, of course (obviously!) is yes - it DID fall.
Exactly WHAT was the purpose of this question anyway???? Just bored and couldn't think of anything better? :wink:
Question is, do we care?
Did it hit something we care about?
Do we care about the tree?
Is there some reason to be concerned about this?
If the tree was supposed to fall, and didn't, do we care?
Are there any mimes around? Congressmen? Tabloid journalists?
If CNN broadcasts the news, and no one turns on that channel that day, was the news still broadcasted?
if you were walking around in the forest, and a tree fell down and crushed you dead, and nobody else was there to witness it, did you really die?
Who will bet me 10quid against 10 that he will bring quantum mechanics into this?
Why do dumbasses still insist on trying to apply the quantum world to the macro.
Since when does a forest have no witnesses, anyway? Bugs, birds, squirrels, deer - I'm sure some poor little chipmunk suddenly found himself running out of the way to keep from getting squashed, and a woodpecker came back and wondered why his favorite tree was laying on the forest floor, all the tasty bugs it harbored quickly escaping as the sap they fed upon dries up. Not to mention all the new little plants that are thinking, "omg, SUNLIGHT!! Time to grow!!"
I hate these F**king ancient philo questions.....
Meanwhile.........*and 1,2,3,4......*
If a tree fell in the forest and no 'human' was around to hear it then it still fell.
We know this because we quite often find things that have not been observed by man before the time it was observed by man, such as dinosaur fossil remains buried between layers of time when man did not walk the Earth and plants and other species and lots of stuff that was here before we were.
However you might be a really radical creationist who considers nothing exists until YOU personally observe it and then it all miraculously appears as it does in a dream sequence.
If you believe your existance is nothing more than dream then NO it did not fall if you did not observe it and seeing it lying on the ground is not evidence it fell only evidence that your dream sequence created an image of a fallen tree.
Does that answer your question?
With regards to Butterfly wings flapping.....that other ancient Philo question.
Everything has a cause and effect but the effect of a butterflies wings flapping is NOT in actual fact responsible for radical weather conditions. I know this as there are an enormous amount of butterflies flapping their wings yet remarkeably few tornado's in comparison.
Chicken and egg is slightly more complicated as the chaps tend to go from a biological evolutionary point of view which suggests the egg came before the chicken in that some thing (not a chicken) laid an egg which had a chicken in it.
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Because it wanted to.
Does your bum look big in that?
Yes
Nextttttttttt
Actually chaos theory dictates that a butterfly flapping its wings could possibally be the source of a tornado.Thats not to say that it wouldnt be extremely rare for the course of events to allow the butterfly flap to escalate into extreme weather.
I dont know if you agree with chaos theory but most scientists do.
Then chaos theory is wrong. What about all the types of movement going on, insect wings, walking, plane propellers. That's a lot of flapping and whirring and not so many Tornado's.Actually chaos theory dictates that a butterfly flapping its wings could possibally be the source of a tornado.
I dont know if you agree with chaos theory but most scientists do.
Chaos theory suggests a small thing can have a big effect, well in some cases it can, but not in ALL cases, only for those things for which science has yet to figure out what it is about that small thing that resulted in the big effect. For example (off topic ish) in herbalism, flower remedies become more potent the more you dilute them!
We are limited in what we can observe by our biology, so we cannot observe what it is in some cases that results in unpredictable behaviour. But that behaviour is entirely predictable to someone or something in the know.
While there is a lot of movement going on, not every movement ever made combines correctly with all the millions of other environmental factors that effect the formation of a tornado. As GhostofMaxwell said, the chance that a single movement will start a chain reaction (that's probably thousands to millions of generations long) that ultimately results in a tornado is low - but it is possible. Just not very likely.Then chaos theory is wrong. What about all the types of movement going on, insect wings, walking, plane propellers. That's a lot of flapping and whirring and not so many Tornado's.Actually chaos theory dictates that a butterfly flapping its wings could possibally be the source of a tornado.
I dont know if you agree with chaos theory but most scientists do.
Not likely at all in my opinion. This is how tornado's occurWhile there is a lot of movement going on, not every movement ever made combines correctly with all the millions of other environmental factors that effect the formation of a tornado. As GhostofMaxwell said, the chance that a single movement will start a chain reaction (that's probably thousands to millions of generations long) that ultimately results in a tornado is low - but it is possible. Just not very likely.Then chaos theory is wrong. What about all the types of movement going on, insect wings, walking, plane propellers. That's a lot of flapping and whirring and not so many Tornado's.Actually chaos theory dictates that a butterfly flapping its wings could possibally be the source of a tornado.
I dont know if you agree with chaos theory but most scientists do.
http://www.nov55.com/tor.html
I don't see any mention of butterflies do you?
Me being funny aside, The movement of a butterflies wings will create a wave which gets smaller the further it travels...it will thus be ineffective at 3 feet and non existant possibly at 10. Or is that wrong?
Thats because "chaos" is probablistic. Thats why its called chaos.
Only about 1 in (i dont know, atleast) a trillion butterfly initiatiation will end up as a tornado.
Indeed, its not likely, but it still has a small probability.Not likely at all in my opinion.While there is a lot of movement going on, not every movement ever made combines correctly with all the millions of other environmental factors that effect the formation of a tornado. As GhostofMaxwell said, the chance that a single movement will start a chain reaction (that's probably thousands to millions of generations long) that ultimately results in a tornado is low - but it is possible. Just not very likely.Then chaos theory is wrong. What about all the types of movement going on, insect wings, walking, plane propellers. That's a lot of flapping and whirring and not so many Tornado's.Actually chaos theory dictates that a butterfly flapping its wings could possibally be the source of a tornado.
I dont know if you agree with chaos theory but most scientists do.
see my edited posts above and in reply to this:
Thats because "chaos" is probablistic. Thats why its called chaos.
Only about 1 in (i dont know, atleast) a trillion butterfly initiatiation will end up as a tornado.
no
as much probability as me marrying Brad PittIndeed, its not likely, but it still has a small probability.Not likely at all in my opinion.While there is a lot of movement going on, not every movement ever made combines correctly with all the millions of other environmental factors that effect the formation of a tornado. As GhostofMaxwell said, the chance that a single movement will start a chain reaction (that's probably thousands to millions of generations long) that ultimately results in a tornado is low - but it is possible. Just not very likely.Then chaos theory is wrong. What about all the types of movement going on, insect wings, walking, plane propellers. That's a lot of flapping and whirring and not so many Tornado's.Actually chaos theory dictates that a butterfly flapping its wings could possibally be the source of a tornado.
I dont know if you agree with chaos theory but most scientists do.
.................Yet still a probability.as much probability as me marrying Brad PittIndeed, its not likely, but it still has a small probability.Not likely at all in my opinion.While there is a lot of movement going on, not every movement ever made combines correctly with all the millions of other environmental factors that effect the formation of a tornado. As GhostofMaxwell said, the chance that a single movement will start a chain reaction (that's probably thousands to millions of generations long) that ultimately results in a tornado is low - but it is possible. Just not very likely.Then chaos theory is wrong. What about all the types of movement going on, insect wings, walking, plane propellers. That's a lot of flapping and whirring and not so many Tornado's.Actually chaos theory dictates that a butterfly flapping its wings could possibally be the source of a tornado.
I dont know if you agree with chaos theory but most scientists do.
ok bad example, given my wit and charm 8)
re tornado's, never , nada, nil, zippo.
who are you anyway Ghost of maxwell? Have we met in a previous incarnation...before you became ghost perhaps, remind me please.
I dont know, maybe you can impress him with the chicken crossimg the road joke.
that was no joke, that was a deep philo question, asnwered supremely by moi! Bloomin' cheek :wink:I dont know, maybe you can impress him with the chicken crossimg the road joke.
I would be a bit of a plank if I were to divulge that to you .
But it's not the butterfly alone that is going to cause a tornado. The butterfly is a contributor, if you will, one of many, to the possibility of creating a tornado. Thus if the wave of air that a butterfly creates hits something that is mere inches away, before it loses all appreciable force, it could then cause something else to happen, which then causes another thing to happen, etc.
It may only be as likely as the probability that I will spontaneously burst into flames in the next five seconds, but that doesn't mean it's 100% impossible.
Wouldn't the ghost of Maxwell have been Maxwell before he was a ghost? Unless Maxwell is a place, I suppose, and not a person. Though considering the picture of a floating beard, he was at least some sort of hominid.
You see the point is, the energy from the butterflies wings could just slightly alter the atmosphere inches around it enough for that to go one to alter it closest atmosphere slightly and so on and so on, until the changes in pressure/temperature oscilate more and more. Then eventually, et voila, we have a tornado that wouldnt have happened if a butterfly didnt flap its wings in that time or place.
Not likely at all in my opinion. This is how tornado's occur
http://www.nov55.com/tor.html
I don't see any mention of butterflies do you?
Me being funny aside, The movement of a butterflies wings will create a wave which gets smaller the further it travels...it will thus be ineffective at 3 feet and non existant possibly at 10. Or is that wrong?
Wouldn't the ghost of Maxwell have been Maxwell before he was a ghost? Unless Maxwell is a place, I suppose, and not a person. Though considering the picture of a floating beard, he was at least some sort of hominid.
The beard belongs to James clerk Maxwell.
Not likely at all in my opinion. This is how tornado's occurWhile there is a lot of movement going on, not every movement ever made combines correctly with all the millions of other environmental factors that effect the formation of a tornado. As GhostofMaxwell said, the chance that a single movement will start a chain reaction (that's probably thousands to millions of generations long) that ultimately results in a tornado is low - but it is possible. Just not very likely.Then chaos theory is wrong. What about all the types of movement going on, insect wings, walking, plane propellers. That's a lot of flapping and whirring and not so many Tornado's.Actually chaos theory dictates that a butterfly flapping its wings could possibally be the source of a tornado.
I dont know if you agree with chaos theory but most scientists do.
http://www.nov55.com/tor.html
I don't see any mention of butterflies do you?
Me being funny aside, The movement of a butterflies wings will create a wave which gets smaller the further it travels...it will thus be ineffective at 3 feet and non existant possibly at 10. Or is that wrong?
Has anyone writing in this thread studied chaos theory in detail? I wish I could say that I had. I did have one upper-level course in chaos and dynamical systems a few years back, so I can maybe say a few things about this topic, but it's not all that fresh.
As of 2002 (when I took this class), there was no universally accepted mathematical definition of chaos. However, one of the most popular ones had 3 parts, and it's the one I'm going to consider here.
Chaos is always in reference to a system. Here, the system we are talking about is the weather. The weather has many possible states. One state includes a tornado in Kansas. Just to pick an example. If the weather is a chaotic system under this definition, then there are several things that must be true. One is that, given a starting state (say, the weather at this very moment) and a possible state (say, a tornado being in existance in kansas), if you wait long enough, the weather will eventually approach arbitrarily close to that possible state.
Another thing that follows is suppose you pick two arbitrarily similar states. For instance, one state is the state of the weather at this very moment. The other state is a possible state exactly like the current state in all ways accept with the addition of a single butterfly wing flap. Then, with enough time, the two weather states -- actual and wing-flap-hypothetical -- will diverge by a certain amount. (This is actually a more nuanced point, but the main thing to take from it is that the states will diverge. What I don't remember exactly is whether they will diverge by an arbitrarily large amount. I think, in fact, that the proof states only that there exists some amount of difference, greater than the original difference, that the two states will eventually differ by. That is, the effect of the wings flapping might not be that much.)
stwhen they talk about the butterly wing flap phenomenon. The idea is that very small initial differences can have large eventual differences. However, there are several things to note:
1) This is only true of a chaotic system. Not all systems are chaotic. Many very interesting systems are non-chaotic, in fact. I don't know if the weather, when described at the detail that would capture butterfly wing flapping, is chaotic.
Some systems, for example, are elastic. I suspect the human body is one. You can do many things to a human body whose effect will disappear quickly, since the body self-repairs fairly well.
Actually, some elasticity is an actual phenomenon within chaos. As I recall, chaotic systems typically have attracting states. That is, regardless of your initial state, you tend to approach a particular final state. Here my memory is very hazy. Does anyone know more about what I'm talking about:?
2) There's nothing about tornado in this definition. If I remember it correctly, it only has to be true that the butterfly wing flapping will have an effect considerably larger than its initial effect...if you wait long enough.
well, that's enough for now.
-----
Please try my non-chaotic web-based experiments at http://coglanglab.org
welcome back bon amiI would be a bit of a plank if I were to divulge that to you .
I studied it to a hugely massive level last night, when it was inserted in this thread to dispute my dispute that 'butterfly wing flapping can cause tornado's'. Wikipedia ( a well known peer reviewed or not, source was most informative).
From my equally vast knowledge of tornado's, movement of air is not instrumental in their creation. So butterfly wings shifting air about is not instrumental.
Your reply seems to concur......
You know what I always thought was mind blowing? If you fly a helicopter out into the middle of the Pacific ocean, open the side door and drop a golf ball in the water - the sea level of all the oceans on this planet will increase in volume.
.....Now thats pretty crazy..
Perhaps not in directly creating the tornado - but say it adds to the wind that moves the right kind of cloud into an area of the right temperature that causes it to precipitate and rise rapidly, causing air to rush into the cloud's vacuum and creating a vortex?
Yes, I did actually read your tornado link earlier. Remember, the butterfly is a contributor in a chain of events. The gust of air it creates doesn't have to directly contribute to the tornado itself, but to a chain of events that eventually ends in a tornado.
Weather can be either chaotic or non-chaotic. A few years back active research was focusing on how to disinguish which state it was in, so that the quality of the weather forecasting could be assessed. i.e if it were chaotic all medium and long range forecasts are going to be low probability.
Unfortunately I have no references for these observations, so you all should feel free to ignore them if they run counter to your prejudices. 8)
Weather can be either chaotic or non-chaotic. A few years back active research was focusing on how to disinguish which state it was in, so that the quality of the weather forecasting could be assessed. i.e if it were chaotic all medium and long range forecasts are going to be low probability.
Unfortunately I have no references for these observations, so you all should feel free to ignore them if they run counter to your prejudices. 8)
A source
http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11641
There is an element of chaos in the weather, less in the climate.
Thats news to me. Can you give an example of weather that is deferministic and unaffected by chaotic influence?
As with the statment that climate somehow resists chaos, I think you have listened to too much spin(possibally green).
see my link in post after ophiolitesThats news to me. Can you give an example of weather that is deferministic and unaffected by chaotic influence?
As with the statment that climate somehow resists chaos, I think you have listened to too much spin(possibally green).
Oh I see what you mean OK. The only thing is that climate models vary dramatically(this is amongst pro climate change organizations) even with super computers crunching the variables. Also upward trends in temperature are apparent for now, but that isnt to say that you can rule out that its not just a peak that will trough.Weather can be either chaotic or non-chaotic. A few years back active research was focusing on how to disinguish which state it was in, so that the quality of the weather forecasting could be assessed. i.e if it were chaotic all medium and long range forecasts are going to be low probability.
Unfortunately I have no references for these observations, so you all should feel free to ignore them if they run counter to your prejudices. 8)
A source
http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11641
There is an element of chaos in the weather, less in the climate.
Although climate change quite rightly should be of grave concern, any suggestion that anthropomorphic climate change is certain and beyond doubt from the media is political raher than scientific.
It's also crap. 1) Think quantum physics, 2) Think about all the other factors that determine sea level...
How the bloody hell did you guys get from the philosophical "tree fell" discussion to the Butterfly Effect?
erm, that would be me.
I amswered the tree thing in such a brilliant way, that the tree subject is now closed, never to be disucssed again, by anyone, ever, in the world. Ever.
It's good to dream.
...Um, Okay MB. You're gonna' have to walk me through this one.It's also crap. 1) Think quantum physics, 2) Think about all the other factors that determine sea level...
I am operating under the assumption that any change in volume is determined by displacement. A liquid and a solid may be two different forms of matter but they are both matter non-the-less. And no two objects of mass can occupy the same space at the same time. If you drop a golf ball into a glass of water the golf ball creates displacement thus increasing the volume level of water. I am also operating under the assumption that this fundemental law of geometry is not - I reapeat NOT - relative to scale.
Before, I was speaking rather broadly. I am not saying that if you drop a golf ball into the ocean the ocean water level of the entire planet will rise. Of course there are thousands even millions of other factors that determine the planets sea level. Whether caused by natural events or human intervention, there are a countless number of things being thrown or removed from the seas every day by which could more than easily counter the displacement of a single golf ball. But displacement will still happen regardless. I was simply acknowledging the fact that even a single golf ball can - by the very principles of physics - alter the volume of any one body of water. No matter how big. Now could such an effect be seen or measured by man? Mathimatically perhaps, if you had some kind of supercomputer, but not in any real way that would make it relative to our comprehension.
By the way....nice to see you again..
....Where the hell have you been?
You are correct that the key word is displacement. However, work out the number of water moelcules displaced by the golf ball. Now try spreading them out over the entire ocean, one layer thick. They probably won't stretch. If that is what Megabrain is talking about, then he is correct. If he's doing his usual absolutist impossible routine, then he's wrong.
| « Forum Snit | We are poisoning our kids! » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
