TIME MACHINE, HISTORY AND CHAOS

I went back in time and painted the Sistene Chapel but Michelangelo still got the credit. Talk about a ripoff!

History is not necessarily a "chaotic system." In reading and writing history, people impose on the past the sense they have of what is significant. Few historical events have been inevitable, but when they have, it has been because of a significant concurrance of events. If Napoleon had not invaded Russia, his empire would have been doomed because he did not do so, just as it was when he actually did so. That was true because he simply could not keep the whole thing afloat in the face of nearly twenty years of constant warfare, and the defiance of the Russians to his continental system. It is also true because the campaigns in Spain bled France white--Spain was Napoleon's "Vietnam" in a certain respect, something most students of history miss altogether. The only significant thing which Napoleon could have done was not to have risen to power at all. When he was defeated in Germany in 1813, he was offered, early in 1814, the opportunity to remain in power, with France at it's "natural" frontiers. That would have been France from the border with Spain to the Alps, and from the Med to the Rhine. Basically, it would have been modern France with a sliver of Italy, all of Belgium and the southern part of Holland, and a big slice of western Germany.

Had there been no Napoleon, or rather, had he never risen to power, that would have been the outcome of the Wars of the Revolution, and absent 15 years of Napoleonic War, France would have been too powerful for anyone to take that territory away from them.

Even the French Revolution was not inevitable, but to have avoided that, the French monarchy would have had to have acted intelligently and in a fiscally responsible manner--so, it probably was inevitable (that's humor, for those with a limited knowledge of French political history).

The American Revolution was not inevitable, and, in fact, it is one of the stupidest passages in English parliamentary history. It never need have happened. Whether or not it did, though, the English speakers of North America were destined to found a great continental empire, which would likely have been the more wealthy and powerful if they had peacefully set upon on their own at some later date, combining what is now the United States and Canada.

History is not chaotic, it just might appear so to someone who carries too little knowledge and too much prejudice into the task of reading and understanding the historical record.

Setanta, I really have no knowledge about the history and does not need one for the question I have raised. My point is, if a butterfly in asian Rainforests swings its wings in air that cause thin ripple of breeze that can trigger a massive hurricane in America, how could you say that History or time (here) is not chaotic?

Setanta wrote-



According to Spengler's morphological theories of history the whole birth,growth,maturity and death process of cultures is inevitable and he would refer to what you call "events" as "incidents.

In an analogy with plants the direction of the lean of the plant in the wind would be a series of incidents not affecting its inevitable destiny.

Napoleon's invasion of Russia is not even a possibilty without the progress and surpluses of agriculture. Given those, and much else, human nature sends him on his way.

Re: TIME MACHINE, HISTORY AND CHAOS

Your assumption that time and/or history is chaotic is unwarranted.
There is no evidence for or against such an assumption.
The question therefore is invalid and requires reformulation within the bounds of known science before any answer coud be arrived at.

For the record; Chaotic systems are deterministic but are not subject to prediction due to the phenomena known as "sensitive dependence on initial conditions".
We cannot know the initial conditions of any system perfectly and can therefore not predict it's actions into the future perfectly.
You can do reasonably well though. Hence weather prediction, models of the solar system projecting the positions of the planets years into the future etc...
These are all chaotic systems however and are not subject to long term prediction.

I doubt that Spengler was a stupid as you portray him, Spendi, but it that were indeed his thesis, he didn't know squat about history. Far from agricultural surplus, it was specifically the lack of an adequate grain harvest in the disasterous year of 1788 which lead to the calling of the Estates, and helped to put in train the specific events which lead to the Revolution--without which, Napoleon were never more than a junior and uninteresting officer in the French Royal Artillery, with academic qualifications well beyond his reasonable career expectations.

But i suspect that Spengler was not quite that stupid. Rather, i suspect this is yet another case of you running off at the mouth when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Setanta writes all the time-



By which one presumes that the fabulous shuttle launch the other night was, and remains, uncivilised.

Spengler goes to inordinate trouble to say the polar opposite of the statement quoted. He compares, for example, the squat solidity of the Parthenon with our Faustian dissolution of the stone masses of our cathedrals into a ghostly wealth of forms and line that have shed all weight and acknowlege no bounds and which in their spires reach, as in Shakespeare, to pull the moon out of the sky.

Solid ground is anathema to us Faustians for whom nothing is of earth and the only actuality is pure limitless space.

We abhor anything material and impenetrable as a glance into Rembrandt's shadows will suffice to show when compared to a Greek statue with which what you see is what you get. In these things we Faustians suspect other worlds which no Greek philosopher would dare to do as it would undermine his society and his view that appearence is all.

Sculptors in ancient Greece were required to show the foot stood on the ground to the extent that all statues involving long drapery needed to be arranged to achieve it even if only a small part of one foot could be seen connected to the earth.And nothing in their painting shows the slightest interest is perspective and the vanishing point which is why they had no electric kettles and had to wash their intimate garments in the river of raw sewage.

An ancient Greek on a world wide cyber-space ghost ship is rather an odd occurence. A bit like a --I'd better not on second thoughts.

Spendius

It would appear that your foul mouthed rantings (which let's face it were quite disgusting) have been removed from the thread, rightly so.

These threads are open to gentlemen, ladies and minors, such use of barrack room language does not have to be tolerated and the powers that be have seen fit to remove the same, I rather hoped they might have suspended you for a month or so.

If you are finding yourself out of your depth on these pages, which on several occasions I have witnessed, your time might well be better employed in creating a 'Spoonerism' thread, or indeed you could idle away the hours in Lola's coffee shop.

Freedom of speech by the way most certainly does not encourage the type of filth which you expectorated onto this thread and I firmly believe you owe Setanta and others whom you have offended a decent apology.

It is no way for any Englishman to behave, I was both appalled and deeply offended that you took such liberties.

I applaud the echelon's of A2K who rightly removed the same.

I await your response and sincere apologies to the members without want of mental reservation.

I can only assume you were well and truly inebriated (which does not appear uncommon) but this is not acceptable as an excuse when so many people must have been deeply shocked at your filthy tirade towards a gentlemen who offers good input.

Mathos-

I hardly think that five heavily censored words used ironically at the end of a fairly long post could have been the cause of the removal of my post.
One sees variations of these words used reasonably often on some threads which are allowed to pass.

It can only have been the reasoned argument of the main body of the post which has caused offence.

The odd thing is that the words Setanta used which caused me to write the post have been allowed to stand and are now unanswered.

Here they are-



What to make of it I'm not sure and speculation on such matters is pointless but it does look as if Setanta can say what he likes with impunity. I think he has a bit of form for running to the headmaster to get his protagonist's hands tied which is something you'll never catch me doing.

But really old boy- take it easy. Your faked outrage is preposterous.

Where there's no sense, there's no feeling.

Mathos-

You would have to offer an explanation of that in order for anyone to make any sense out of it.

As it stands it is not dissimilar to Setanta's assertion yesterday which I am seemingly not allowed to reply to.

Your response to my previous post, well it kinds of give a full explanation to the post Spendius, you need look no further.


'Seemingly not allowed to reply to'

Come on Spendius, that's a big girls blouse response to the occurences of yesterday.

Your post itself was quite good, I say that tongue in cheek as I rarely see you write anything but twaddle.

However, you concluded a great post with a tirade of four letter filth, which was nasty, unwarranted, and a total disgrace for you or anybody else to contaminate the pages of this excellent site with. Your actions made me grimace Spendius, I was totally ashamed and disgusted with you.

It had to be removed, and I applaud the actions of the controllers for removing the same without further ado.

There is nothing to stop you re-writing the post, is there?

This time I would be extremely cautious in how you finalise the same, our colonial friends running this site would no doubt suspend your participation
for some time. Rather like you have received a yellow card, one more equals a red, one red and your off. You know the rules regarding language of that nature Spendius, it is not on.

I dare say it was the alcohol consumed on a Saturday afternoon at your local which created your lack of common sense and manners, however, it is not the point.

You should, and I rather think do know better, I daresay you are feeling quite ashamed of yourself now 'Old Boy' if not, then my previous post is more lucidly explained to you.

I rather think you should accept your bollocking with style Spendius, be a man and take it on the chin.

Actually, you don't stand a chance in this one you know the very true and very old saying;-

Might is Right

I could accuser you of having made a real spectacle of yourself, or I could call you an out and out banker, but I have trouble with my spelling from time to time.

One can only smile to oneself.

Well that would be an improvement on the use of foul language.

Loosen the strings on your corsets Mathos. They are obviously too tight.

You are beginning to sound like Mrs Whitehouse.

Mathos-

Go see OCCOM Bill's post No 2135363 on page 94 of the Immigration and Racism in Britain and USA thread in Philosophy and Debate forum.

If you are really dedicated to cleaning up the site for the Mother's Union rather than conducting a personal vendetta against myself, whilst, incidentally, continuing to focus on what you call "foul language" which you obviously like talking about, perhaps you should give Bill a taste of your sharp tongue.

And Mr Apisa who used the expression "Fuk it" the other day.

And someone else who got round the devices with a space (fu ck).

You commented on neither or any of the others I have seen and that rather makes it look like you are not particularly bothered about ladies and minors or "foul language" and thus that it was the content of the main body of the post that got under your skin which I thought quite elegant and fit to grace any thread with pretensions to intellectuality and freedom of discourse.

What I wrote at the end was self-evidently a joke although I am aware that I might have put a smiley there to help you realise it and I would have done if it wasn't for the fact that to do so patronises readers not a little.

Spendi, I am policing the English law breakers, not the American's they know no better.

Well tell McTag not to call our Prime Minister "A smarmy,cheesy git" on the World Cup thread then instead of bothering your puritanical little noggin about words all the 10 year old schoolgirls use regularly after their religion free classes.

After all top generals on active service can't be expected to take orders from a person of that description.

There is a fascinating question at the core of this thread - namely whether the trajectory of human history is deterministic and predictable, or whether it is chaotic (i.e. deterministic, but unpredictable owing to sensitive dependence on initiakl conditions.).

Setanta has expressed the view that history is not chaotic in at least some aspects of the term, however he has aptly noted some very interesting potential turning points in the history of France & Napoleon as an example.

I believe that the unfolding of human history is almost certainly a chaotic system in the mathematical sense of that term. By that I mean that history (as we commonly accept it) is the macro summary of the individual choices and actions of people with and without prominence, fame, and power, and a study of the gross effects and patterns that emerge over time.

At the individual level we confront the paradox of human volition - are our choices and actions deterministic, or is free will, or something like it, a random variable that adds disorder to determinism? In either case the analysis of the trajectory over time of the macro effects of these choices and actions (i.e. history) permits chaos, as long as the choices of individuals can affect others (as they do) and the possibility of sensitive dependence (i.e. actions by some that have significant influence, either in the immediate locale or on a larger scale.

It is useful at this juncture to consider some characteristics of chaotic systems that have emerged from the mathematical analysis of them over the last several decades, and as well to consider a few examples of such systems.

Chaotic systems all involve what, in mathematical terms, are called parabolic systems. This refers to the type of feedback involved and the relationship among the variables - there must be some element of non-linearity, some coupling of a variable and its rate of change, and, as well, a certain relationship between (typically) the space and time variables in the process. Typically this involves an open-ended problem in which, given a known relationship between certain variables and their rates of change over time, one attempts to project their future state from a specification of an initial state. One can, in principle, carry on this calculation indefinately and forecast the entire future of the system, subject only to the specified initial conditions and any prevailing boundary conditions.

When this is done for many systems (each defined by the relation among the variables and their rates of change), many are found to have regions (over time and certain values of the scale parameters that influence the system) in which such forecasts are found to diverge quickly from the measured outcomes in the real world. Moreover it is typically found that the forecast itself is extremely sensitive to the slightest change in either the specified initial conditions or the value of the various scale parameters -- even if the calvculations are carried out with ever-increasing precision (# of digits). After quite a bit of study it was found that the observed chaotic behavior of the mathematical analysis (typically computer forecasts ior simulations) was an intrinsic characteristic of the system in question itself, and not the result of the approximations in the calculations. What the mathematical simulations were revealing were indeed possible outcomes of the system, but only randomly related to the real deterministic outcome, based on the initial conditions. All this was the result of the inherent nonlinearity of the relation between variable and rate of change and their sensitive dependence on even infinitesmal changes in the initial conditions.

Some other interesting characteristics of chaotic systems include the observation that they are self-regulating - they exhibit central tendencies, even with all the large chaotic excursions, that are independent of the specific initial conditions, Moreover they exhibit a certain self-similarity on different scales of values of their variables and parameters - patterns repeat themselves on different scales - some repeating in a fractal regularity. There is more, but these are suffivcient to illustrate the point.

The most ubiquitous chaotic system we encounter is the weather. We know the physical laws determining the exchange of energy and momentum in the materials that make up the atmosphere, and we have increasingly accurate data on its state at any given time. However, despite the explosion in the power of computing that has occurred over the last four decades, our numerical weather forecasts still diverge from reality after just a few days. Moreover we cannot predict the occurrance or timing of major storms or hurricanes, etc. Despite this we are able to make fairly accurate gross predictions based on seasonal and other long-term variations, known over time. This chaotic system of earth's atmosphere is incapable of accurate prediction, but at the same time exhibits certain recurrant patterns.

Parenthetically, it is this fact that raised serious questions about the doomsday forecasts for global warming - the atmospheric simulations that suggest it are themselves subject to chaotic uncertainty. The scenarios described are possible, but have no scientific value as predictions.

The values of the Dow Jones Indes of stock prices (and other such indices) also exhibit chaotic variation. No matter how accurately we model the behavior of traders, institutional investors and individual, analysts are unable to accurately predict what the market will do on a given day or the occurance of major excursions in values. Despite this reams of material are written about gross trends in the market - and some of it is even accurate!

In conclusion, while the retrospectave history of human life is knowable, its future trajectory cannot be accurately predicted, no matter how accurately we may know the present state of things. History is therefore a chaotic system. Moreover, in examining and considering some very interesting "What might have been" scenarios, we are inescapably confronted with the fact that history does not reveal its alternatives. We cannot even forecast the present state from a known previous state, and we similarly cannot accurately forecast what might have been had this or that happened differently.