Omnisciency is a paradox, knowing everything that would happen would take away your free will because you would already know what you are about to do.. so god can't be omniscient and free.. and if he tried to stray from the future he saw then he would no longer be omniscient.. and how can you create time without time.. time is just relative change so without time there is no change so thus nothing can be created outside of it.. boom christianity get owned.
@IamBday Chaos is theoretically predictable. It's just that chaotic systems have such large variations in results with such small changes that you would need an unimaginable amount of computing power to accurately predict the events in the system.
@Aviatorsmith Well not necessarily, because in certain instances the variation could be the result of such incredibly small changes that the uncertainty principle would prevent you from accurately measuring the initial conditions from which you would make a prediction. Even a small degree of uncertainty would increase exponentially with a meager increase in the number of interactions taking place after the initial conditions, so that's not at all unreasonable.
At 9:27 "If you really want something random, just take two very simple systems and let them talk to one another."
Not quite. Letting them talk to one another produces resonance - the very opposite effect, very regular. However, letting two simple but different systems depend on each other produces chaos.
Resonance and chaos: the opposite, yet in a way similar phenomena.
(2) to anyone. I never told anyone this years later, thinking only "defective" minds like mine spend much time with these silly matters, & I didn't dare reveal my defects! Of course, I was blown away when I first learned of chaos theory! I couldn't believe I actually pondered this in many different ways (including social interactions) as far back as my preverbal days- and believed I was demented for doing so!!!
(1)I recall watching smoke tendrils from a campfire wen I was 6 years old, pondering this precise subject matter (minus all the vocabulary; I couldn't talk then) Imagining the shape, position and speed of all the eddie currents, both what I see & can't see, the effects of my hand motions has on the shape, position speed of the tendrils, concluding that even the movements of Mom's finger, tapping on the table several meters away will have the same effects many minutes later, but indiscernable-
@motionapplied: That's true enough in this case, but I've certainly read enough comments that were so freeform as to loose meaning. The rules of syntax have real utility in the banishment of ambiguity.
@motionapplied Yawn..... So you missed the point entirely, and decided an overly aggressive rebuttal would help you get some sleep. I knew you would take a huge hang up on the use of the word "troll", the only subliminal message to be had was the one that your mind concocted. Yeah, I could have used any other example to make a very straight forward point ie "what constitutes 'better' ". But predictably you went on rant rampage over the use of the word "troll". How long did all that take you?
Religious vs atheists is a pathetic battle, because Atheist attack the religious people who are closed minded and religious attack the atheists who are closed minded. I am a theist, but God could be an extra-dimensional mad scientist experimenting with creating universes for that matter, I do not care, but I'm pretty sure that there is someOne there, because of the Big Bang, and the Irreducible complexity of the most basic life form.
@motionapplied My theory that gravity is caused by trolls vs gravity caused by mass. Can you pick the better one? Darwinian evolution is the current "better theory", while Lamarckian evolution is a "worse theory" as you say. Your example of Pauli suggests you missed my point that religion offered the world a theory on the creation of existence, now that a "better theory" has arrived, religion does not have the humility or sense to concede that they had a "worse theory".
@motionapplied I imagine 2 universes. If they are identical and deterministic, then over time they will unfold in the exactly same way. But if you make a change to one - however small - then that change will be amplified, if you compare with what would have happened to the 'control universe'. The butterfly itself isn't really relevant - it may as well be an atom that moves up in one universe and down in the other. It affects its neighbours, and they affect theirs, ad infinitum - chaotically!
It's not true that the butterfly would "in reality make no difference" - because the perturbations it causes would cause other perturbations, and those influences would extend outside of the weather system and feed back into it. The problem is that we only have one universe, and one experiment, so we cannot truly compare one outcome with an imagined alternative.
Thats intresting but if you really wanted to do it, you should do it with a machine with the hitting power and speed being the same, although i imagine the position of the earth changes everything.
I love the unpredictable universe, because it tells us that everything scientists tell us is fallble. Or in the words of Ezio from AC, nothing is true, everything is permitted.
We would not exist if chaos wasn't present.
IF the universe was predictable, a computer simulation could show us how everything began. This will always lead to a fundamental problem,,, who or what put in the inital value that led to everything which followed ?
@CGI4U The idea that "someone or something" had to "put in the initial value" for the Universe is so flawed on such a basically level. I'm baffled that 8 people who watch these videos would upvote such a blatant logic fallacy to the highest rated comment on this video.
@PurpleSector You look smart when you say that, but denying something when you can't prove it's wrong is as stupid as stating something that you can't prove.
@montotosk I can't prove most of things are wrong - I can't prove a shining unicorn with 3 ears didn't wink one day and that didn't create the energy for the Universe to spring into existence. I really can't prove that this is not correct. But I can surely say that it's a logical fallacy to state that we don't know yet, and so this is the correct conclusion until somebody disproves it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations. The scientist is far more humble and sensible than the religious because even though they express their theory, they are open to a better one, should it arise. Religious types make a huge claim without the humility or sensibility of an explanation.
@JezaLoki There is plenty of evidence of a Grand Design. I trust that you yourself are open to this evidence and hence to this claim, whether a scientist or a preacher said it. Grin.
@FltOfTheGrndBnd Im open to it, until it falls through like so many other so-called evidences of design. Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy skepticism in an open mind. But once your claim has been demolished, have the humility to accept facts. I'd unceremoniously discard everything I think I know about physics, chemistry, biology etc... if there was any flawless evidence that a god was responsible for it all. No need to get emotional over facts. Nice grin btw...
@JezaLoki The bottom line is that we don't know...we may formulate and discard models all the live long day, but in the end, we will know NOTHING about our answer of beginnings...so conjectures are accepted on faith...and this summons a great deal of introspection and thought....we must think objectively and ask certain questions like "Why does the cosmos exist?"...not necessarily how, but why...and similar questions. To question our existence to the heart of the matter is to reveal your answer.
@JezaLoki Well, I was trying to show you another way to look at it.....I'm not exactly trying to pose it as an "important" or necessary question...just a thought experiment, if you will. And as such, aren't a preferred method of thinking by everyone, but are interesting nonetheless. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean when you say faith without knowing is never positive. See next reply......
@JezaLoki As I was saying...this is certainly your opinion...but I've always found it pleasing or encouraging to know...nothing. Many a scientist, including Newton and Einstein felt this way too...this doesn't drive my point, I know...but faith can be good when finding the truth...for instance, if the two of us were astronauts and the local dairy farmer hired us to go to the moon to see if it was an important asset to the cheese industry (grin). See next reply....my apologies for the length.
@JezaLoki So we are trying to find the truth about the composition of the moon, right? So to get there we need to build a spaceship that needs to safely carry us and our shovels up there, and eventually our cheese or moon rocks back. Well, we must research....build this ship.....test...test some more...and never know! There is still possibility of the failure of the vehicle. So we ride in this ship on faith, see. And we find that there is no cheese. One last message to sum up.....
@FltOfTheGrndBnd Yes I see what you are saying concerning faith in the context of the spaceship, but if we test and test more the spaceship as you said, then faith is redundant. I think you mean hope rather than faith. Hope can certainly be positive, especially when risking your life for cheese. I used to fly alot for work, and i always hoped the plane wouldnt crash. I never thought "I have faith that the plane wont crash", because how could I say I knew it wouldn't? Id be lying to myself.
@JezaLoki This discussion has taken a course of academics and defining terms...since you seem to be the one setting the discrepancy between faith and hope....please define these in your own words so I can understand your point of view in more context...I do see where you're going...but I've had a similar discussion before and two dictionaries have had different definitions of faith, one being COMPLETE freedom from doubt, and another resembling your word, hope.
@FltOfTheGrndBnd Faith for me means belief without knowing, but is still a belief, like any other belief. A persons beliefs need to be taken seriously. Hope for me is something you wish for, and particularly when you have no control, influence, or input. Some people have hope there is a god, others have faith.....but perhaps we shouldn't continue..... Im no academic, im just a moron with a computer and some spare time...
Though I don't wish to have the last word, I await your reply.
@JezaLoki Well, I'll just say that Christ had a habit of hitting the nail on the head.....the Bible is chock-full of wisdom even you aren't a Christian. I encourage you to look at what it says and decide. This choice may be the most important decision in your life. Good luck.
@FltOfTheGrndBnd Yeah, I was raised a catholic, I had that bullshit drilled into me until I was about 15. Then as the answers to my questions dried up, and were replaced with vague threats I knew that not only was I deceived into a disgraceful lie, but most of those who perpetuated the lie were ignorant bullies. Then I began to read about history, science, philosophy, and realised that people who say "i believe coz there has to be more than this" are blind to how awesome "this" really is.
@JezaLoki But you as well said that it is never a good thing to accept things on faith in the course of seeking truth...and when it comes down to this level of discussion...it may be safe to call this vague. But back on doubt...as a Christian, I have times of doubt, but still have faith. But no matter, I have been given senses...and a reason to do with what I have to the best of my ability and find where or Whom I got it from. "To me it suffices to wonder at these secret
@JezaLoki Oops......as I was saying......"To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." -Albert Einstein
@JezaLoki So there's no cheese. In my opinion, this is a good thing to know, insofar that it was actually worth the effort. But to say it is NEVER good to accept things on faith in order to find the truth, I find, is absurd. Now your exact word was "positive" and you may have meant something besides "good" as I just stated....please clarify if your thoughts were misconstrued.....and again, excuse the long message.
@AstralDragoon Nobody knows. Theories and models should be made once we have more evidence or a better understanding of the principles of the Universe under such conditions. My point is that "we don't know therefore arbitrary being(s) which I invent and set the parameters for in my mind ('God(s)') did it" isn't a logical suggestion.
@PurpleSector It could be true, but one would have to either have evidence that the said someone or something had existed or exists within the universe and that it directly influenced the Big Bang, or one would have to assume the universe is finite and have evidence that the said someone or something had direct influence on the initial conditions of the big bang while not being within the confines of the universe before the universe and time existed, which would likely be impossible to prove.
@Anxian Yes, but it is impossible to be that accurate. A computer simulating such motion may also give different results. As any future motion is an estimate within a range of uncertainties, the outcome becomes less and less known as uncertainties are cumulative. The results are chaotic. At the quantum level expecting identical results from identical experiments will leave you disappointed.
There is absolutely no relation between chaotic and random behaviors.
Even some very simple discrete systems exhibit chaotic behavior. If you are wondering what a discrete system is, a discrete system is one in which quantities like displacement, velocity are accurately calculated, with in the least count of measurement. There is no mean(avg) and/or standard deviation associated with them.
Randomness is ignorance and is inability to know d information with 100% accuracy.
The universe Started, cooled down, formed matter, solar systems, earth, collision put earth on tilt, seasons to allow for life, moon to allow for tides where mollecules could begin, dinosaurs after billions of years, asteroid destoyed them to allow for mammals to succeed, apes, homosapians, brains get larger, my parents parents parents have sex, then they have sex and so on, the one sperm reaches the egg, and I get born and make a comment on YouTube 22 years later. NOW THATS CHAOS! and amazing.
@lambsio Yes, it's really interesting isnt it. Raises a lot of questions about perceived "freedom", and determinism and predicting the future. What I make of it is that there are simply too many variables and conditions, and then you have the trump card which is humans can make uniformed, irrational, illogical choices and conclusions.
Well, i'd say our decisions are always based on something though. Even internal reasons that apparently have nothing to do with anything at the moment are always influenced by events in the past, upon one builds his character/personality.
In my point of view, the known universe is but a result of an incomprehensible and inconceivable chain of events and everything that happens, happens with a 100% chance, as their cause ONLY allows for THEM to happen.
@lambsio If we were to jump back in time a few seconds, theres a percentage chance that I would have chosen to not reply to your comment regardless of my temperament or personality, but due to unpredictable thought patterns.
But wouldn't you say that your action was a result of all the factors that influenced you in every possible way? If yes, then there is always a 100% chance that you replied to my comment because the factors in which you based your decision on would be exactly the same.
@lambsio I certainly assume there is a truly "chaotic" factor in thought. For me, imagining a 100% chance that I replied to that comment is ignoring all the other influences,(for example) such as I was thirsty at the time, or I hadnt finished watching the video, or I needed to use the toilet, or I had an email I needed to reply to and so on. To reply to you wasnt a conscious choice based on defined points, but there was an unpredictable internal processes going on that can have gone either way.
@mikeswbr no, true chaos is not described here. this talks about the buterfly effect which is not chaos, chaos is random, with no logical explanation or the ability to predict it. not because we don't know but because it truely is chaotic
@BrokenBrilliance well I can give you a list of textbooks that will disagree. chaotic motion is not random, but it is unpredictable. by the way you have a cyclic definition of the word chaos.
@BrokenBrilliance This is the beauty of chaos theory. It is not predictable unless you have infinite processing power, because the simulation requires an infinitesimal time-step (or at most, planck-time timestep). A simple example is found in the three-body problem, which has been proven to be deterministic yet no closed mathematical solution exists.
I don't like that view of the "butterfly effect" on chaos. Why would you say that that specific butterfly caused the event? It seems to me that everything is causing everything else all the time...Isn't it?
"If you really want to get something random, get two very simple systems and let them talk to each other." Sounds like chaos theory could be applied to politics.
The main reason why I watch sixty symbols rather than the other science video sis because there is no gay music playing in the background to make things sound 'spooky'
I thought the angle of incidence and reflection were defined as the angle the trajectory makes with the normal to the surface... not the compliment. I suppose it's essentially the same. This video would have been a good excuse for them to get an air hockey table to demonstrate a (near) frictionless surface.
I'm glad they didn't use one of those annoying inflatable advertising wacky flailing arm men... things.
It's about monthes now that I watch your videos and realise I didn't even subscribe because I was so sure to have done it by reflex... Let's do it now... XD
Anyhow, nice video, very clear explanations, as ever.
I'm not sure why but I found this one of the Sixty Symbols videos particularly great! Well done explaining, nice examples, and gee the professor can scetch :o
Indeed keep on making work of this, the result is great. fascinating!
As an electrical engineer I love these videos and they have almost made me wish I had been a physicist . . . almost. Now I'm going to go back to designing flying cars.
Can quantum effects be magnified into the macroscopic realm via the butterfly effect? If so, even controlling initial conditions to absolute precision would not produce the same result every time.
I love the reverb sound in the room with the snooker table. Makes me think about how the sound is randomly traveling around that room to produce that familiar noise I call reverb. Another great video, thanks.
Love this channel, its absolutely brilliant and as far as I'm aware unique on youtube for its intellectual prowess of contributors (the lecturers), colourful presentation and accessibility for the layman. Unfortunately I watched all 140+ previous videos in about a week and now it seems like agony waiting for each next one!
I can't help but notice how the balls in this video are regarded without question as separate objects from the table. What are the objective criteria for something to be a separate object?
As you did the Snooker demonstration, I recalled seeing champion billiard players do trick shots. These players could consistently hit a cue ball with speed and direction attributes that were within the tolerance required to accomplish complex shots. Years ago, when I spoke to a player they said the key was careful set up and sufficient speed and spin ("English") to overcome the friction of the felt. This explanation is perfectly consistent with what you demonstrated. Great demo.
I have a question about the last part of the video.
You drew a table that is almost elliptical except that it had a pair of sides which are parallel. What if the table were a perfect ellipse? Would it be that no matter from where you hit the ball, it will always reach the same point, x? (Excluding hitting it from the foci of the ellipse.)
@oORoBeOo check out our sixty symbols website... we started making videos about sixty different physics and astronomy symbols... we've now done more than 130 I think!!!
Can I ask a question? Are the tiny variations that affect something like weather predictions computable in principle, or are they so small that the uncertaincy principle would prevent us from ever having a complete and 100 reliable model?
Thanks for your efforts across all the Nottingham science channels.
@wantonmechanics im Guessing theoretically it would be possible if you knew every single variable perfectly. But in practice it's a bit hard to find out that information. :/
When Brady says that because a computer can compute the trajectories then system isn't chaotic at 4:10, he was incorrect. Brady was using the popular definition of "chaotic" which is synonymous with "random," which is different than what the video is talking about. The video is talking more about "chaos" in the sense of "sensitivity to initial conditions."
On the subject of Chemistry and Chaos, it would be fantastic if you could show the Belousov-Zhabotinskii reaction; visually very impressive too (good video!)
@2112murphy The point is it is not easy to predict.. one slight difference would make the ball go in a completely different direction, do you understand??
0:29 . no difference? I didn't know mother nature actually does rounding.
even if the change is .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ad some more. and then 1.. over the eons of time this change will grow. Or are there actually proven valleys of action that are completely negatet, even in an open system?
@ultraverydeepfield Don't tell mother nature (or even God) what to do. Quantum fuzziness implies that even the universe itself doesn't carry around infinite precision of all variables. Something even as massive as the flap of butterfly wings gets rounded out through the fuzziness to some degree.
@resinatedhuman I'm not remotely qualified to speak about what is right for schools..
Tell you what though... I'd love to make a video series about the Koran... That would be really fascinating... It's also a really significant book and I know quite little about it.
I liked the trail effect with the long exposure shutter to show the chaotic motion of the double pendulum.
If you have AfterEffects you can make a very effective trails using the 'time echo' filter, which I have used to great satisfaction for tracing the path of my sister's crazy dog's tail...
But I have to say something about the approach of scientists to the term chaos.
There is no chaos in our existing. There is only limitation and ignorance in the eyes of the observer.
The term chaos can not be used as an explanation to an outcome from a scientific observation, but more as a current ability level of science to handle all the parameters in the equation.
Or in other word, in a non-limited science, the professor wallet was a 100 £ lighter :)
@eliranrdt IMHO you are confusing the every day meaning of chaos, with a chaotic system in Mathematics, and that's what they showed, brilliantly, as always.
They are talking about systems that are very sensitive to their initial conditions... not about science "abilities". The theory has plenty of applications in all kinds of fields: economics, physics, biology... to name a few.
@pbezunartea It's not much of confusion between the mathematical term and the daily use.
In the pendulum explanation it was the mathematic, but the snooker example was the chaos I was talking about, and the challenge to repeat perfectly of the shot, had nothing to do with the mathematics, only with the disability of use to control all the parameters.
The butterfly affect came to show the order in the causal system, which nothing is random. Not even the quantum world.
@eliranrdt Yes. If all the balls were in *exactly* the same positions and he hit the cue ball at *exactly* the same speed and spin, the outcome would be the same. The point is that even a tiny difference would change the result hugely.
@SchumiUCD Youtube give only 500 letters so my original comment got shorter. In my original comment, I talked about the *exactly* and mention that too will not be enough, because your environment had minor changes, the balls will lose their shape on impact with the other balls, the surface will not be the same as before the first shot.
Our lack of ability to collect and manage the minor parameters, is the reason we call anything we can't figure out as chaos.
Fabulous. I'm a high school student at the top of my class and I love learning about random phenomena like this. It was very odd when I was watching this video because I have thought about things like this before (such as a fan rooting for their favorite baseball team in front of the TV affecting the outcome of the game) without even knowing it had an actual name. This was the first video of yours I've watched and I must say, I won't miss any future videos. Keep it up!
@joecapps1127 Well done for being top of yr class joe!!! if u like this one, subscribe, & make sure you go and check out the rest of the vids on "sixty symbols", and also "periodic videos", and Bradys other channels - Backstage Science, words of the world, trees of the world, bibledex, Fav Scientist. I cant recommend them strongly enough, and reckon everyone would agree they are some of the best, if not THE best, yt has to offer! tell all yr class mates too! :)
@jeebersjumpincryst How did bibledex get into that list? On that channel you can see theologians waffling and saying absolutely nothing. You can clearly see what happens to the mind if you do nothing but read ancient texts. What a difference between that and SixtySymbols!
@weberbeat to quote Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion:
"I must admit that even I am a little taken aback at the biblical ignorance commonly displayed by people educated in more recent decades than I was."
AND
"I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education."
I like making Bibledex videos. I learn stuff. But just don't subscribe if you don't like them!
@sixtysymbols I know the bible very well. The more I read, the more disgusted I was. Of course I also read the god delusion and I'm pretty sure, RD would agree with me.
@weberbeat why do you give religion the position of a counterpart to science. It's like your approving there doctrine to the important level of science.
If one man stands with a sign "THE END IS NEAR" no one take him seriously. But go ahead and argue with him, and you will get a Listening crowd.
@eliranrdt Most schools where I live teach religions of the world, including Christianity, Islam, etc.
They aren't trying to get people to join a religion; they are studying the religion and the texts from a historical, philosophical, cultural, and anthropological perspective.
They also have classes about mythology, and most colleges I know of have Greek mythology classes.
You don't think any of that is important? Shouldn't one know about the religions that most people in the world believe in?
Omnisciency is a paradox, knowing everything that would happen would take away your free will because you would already know what you are about to do.. so god can't be omniscient and free.. and if he tried to stray from the future he saw then he would no longer be omniscient.. and how can you create time without time.. time is just relative change so without time there is no change so thus nothing can be created outside of it.. boom christianity get owned.
verifymyageful 2 weeks ago
I understand Chaos and was introduced to it when Jurassic Park came out but that Snooker game what? Is that like Pool?
rabbitsib 3 weeks ago
I want one of those garden sprinklers !
LongJohnOlsen 3 weeks ago
So I guess the real question is whether chaos is predictable or not..
IamBday 1 month ago
@IamBday Chaos is theoretically predictable. It's just that chaotic systems have such large variations in results with such small changes that you would need an unimaginable amount of computing power to accurately predict the events in the system.
Aviatorsmith 1 month ago
@Aviatorsmith Well not necessarily, because in certain instances the variation could be the result of such incredibly small changes that the uncertainty principle would prevent you from accurately measuring the initial conditions from which you would make a prediction. Even a small degree of uncertainty would increase exponentially with a meager increase in the number of interactions taking place after the initial conditions, so that's not at all unreasonable.
DiomedesStrosMkai 3 weeks ago
One should ALWAYS remember where their balls are.
cheers
nedladdy 1 month ago
i love how after he fucks up breaking the first time hes like "well that was a pretty boring thing to do" haha
MrJccmc3 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
At 9:27 "If you really want something random, just take two very simple systems and let them talk to one another."
Not quite. Letting them talk to one another produces resonance - the very opposite effect, very regular. However, letting two simple but different systems depend on each other produces chaos.
Resonance and chaos: the opposite, yet in a way similar phenomena.
Kurtlane 1 month ago
(2) to anyone. I never told anyone this years later, thinking only "defective" minds like mine spend much time with these silly matters, & I didn't dare reveal my defects! Of course, I was blown away when I first learned of chaos theory! I couldn't believe I actually pondered this in many different ways (including social interactions) as far back as my preverbal days- and believed I was demented for doing so!!!
727Phoenix 1 month ago
(1)I recall watching smoke tendrils from a campfire wen I was 6 years old, pondering this precise subject matter (minus all the vocabulary; I couldn't talk then) Imagining the shape, position and speed of all the eddie currents, both what I see & can't see, the effects of my hand motions has on the shape, position speed of the tendrils, concluding that even the movements of Mom's finger, tapping on the table several meters away will have the same effects many minutes later, but indiscernable-
727Phoenix 1 month ago
the flower sprinkler is random (unpredictable but consistent) not chaotic (unpredictable and inconsistent)
if I'm wrong please tell me
darkpheonix77 1 month ago in playlist More videos from sixtysymbols
@motionapplied: That's true enough in this case, but I've certainly read enough comments that were so freeform as to loose meaning. The rules of syntax have real utility in the banishment of ambiguity.
puncheex 1 month ago
@motionapplied Yawn..... So you missed the point entirely, and decided an overly aggressive rebuttal would help you get some sleep. I knew you would take a huge hang up on the use of the word "troll", the only subliminal message to be had was the one that your mind concocted. Yeah, I could have used any other example to make a very straight forward point ie "what constitutes 'better' ". But predictably you went on rant rampage over the use of the word "troll". How long did all that take you?
JezaLoki 2 months ago
Religious vs atheists is a pathetic battle, because Atheist attack the religious people who are closed minded and religious attack the atheists who are closed minded. I am a theist, but God could be an extra-dimensional mad scientist experimenting with creating universes for that matter, I do not care, but I'm pretty sure that there is someOne there, because of the Big Bang, and the Irreducible complexity of the most basic life form.
similingjester 2 months ago
@motionapplied My theory that gravity is caused by trolls vs gravity caused by mass. Can you pick the better one? Darwinian evolution is the current "better theory", while Lamarckian evolution is a "worse theory" as you say. Your example of Pauli suggests you missed my point that religion offered the world a theory on the creation of existence, now that a "better theory" has arrived, religion does not have the humility or sense to concede that they had a "worse theory".
JezaLoki 2 months ago
the plural of pendulum (even though it's not real latin) would be pendula not penduli
8DannyBoy 2 months ago
WHY is every single science-related video on youtube littered with garbage comments about religion? even this one.
religions, just get the fuck off this planet already, please. let us be!
xjaskix 2 months ago
@motionapplied I imagine 2 universes. If they are identical and deterministic, then over time they will unfold in the exactly same way. But if you make a change to one - however small - then that change will be amplified, if you compare with what would have happened to the 'control universe'. The butterfly itself isn't really relevant - it may as well be an atom that moves up in one universe and down in the other. It affects its neighbours, and they affect theirs, ad infinitum - chaotically!
LJHaywood 3 months ago
It's not true that the butterfly would "in reality make no difference" - because the perturbations it causes would cause other perturbations, and those influences would extend outside of the weather system and feed back into it. The problem is that we only have one universe, and one experiment, so we cannot truly compare one outcome with an imagined alternative.
LJHaywood 3 months ago
Thumbs up this comment and u can prevent a hurricane from smashing into New York!!!
dviator86 3 months ago
OMG i have the same flower, just blue, thats been sitting in my garage for 12 yrs
MyNameIsSteveYesitis 4 months ago
is it so that chaos does not exist? what has a begining has an ending and therefor is not chaotic?
jeepvsix 5 months ago
Comment removed
jeepvsix 5 months ago
Thats intresting but if you really wanted to do it, you should do it with a machine with the hitting power and speed being the same, although i imagine the position of the earth changes everything.
Ghost572 6 months ago
your dad loves my shit
MariaJones101 6 months ago
My shit loves your dad
eklipze10 6 months ago 3
My dad loves your shit.
1337x1337x 6 months ago
My dad loves your shit.
1337x1337x 6 months ago
I love the unpredictable universe, because it tells us that everything scientists tell us is fallble. Or in the words of Ezio from AC, nothing is true, everything is permitted.
We would not exist if chaos wasn't present.
IF the universe was predictable, a computer simulation could show us how everything began. This will always lead to a fundamental problem,,, who or what put in the inital value that led to everything which followed ?
CGI4U 6 months ago
@CGI4U I believe those are the words of Altair ;)
Fiarzen 6 months ago
@Fiarzen thanks :D
CGI4U 6 months ago
@CGI4U The idea that "someone or something" had to "put in the initial value" for the Universe is so flawed on such a basically level. I'm baffled that 8 people who watch these videos would upvote such a blatant logic fallacy to the highest rated comment on this video.
PurpleSector 5 months ago in playlist Videos from sixtysymbols 27
@PurpleSector to make a cake you've got to put some ingredients in the bowl
CGI4U 5 months ago
@CGI4U the universe isn't a cake
TheKylengo 5 months ago
@PurpleSector You look smart when you say that, but denying something when you can't prove it's wrong is as stupid as stating something that you can't prove.
montotosk 5 months ago
@montotosk I can't prove most of things are wrong - I can't prove a shining unicorn with 3 ears didn't wink one day and that didn't create the energy for the Universe to spring into existence. I really can't prove that this is not correct. But I can surely say that it's a logical fallacy to state that we don't know yet, and so this is the correct conclusion until somebody disproves it.
PurpleSector 5 months ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations. The scientist is far more humble and sensible than the religious because even though they express their theory, they are open to a better one, should it arise. Religious types make a huge claim without the humility or sensibility of an explanation.
JezaLoki 5 months ago 47
@JezaLoki well put :D
alexanderhulse 2 months ago
@JezaLoki There is plenty of evidence of a Grand Design. I trust that you yourself are open to this evidence and hence to this claim, whether a scientist or a preacher said it. Grin.
FltOfTheGrndBnd 2 weeks ago
@FltOfTheGrndBnd Im open to it, until it falls through like so many other so-called evidences of design. Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy skepticism in an open mind. But once your claim has been demolished, have the humility to accept facts. I'd unceremoniously discard everything I think I know about physics, chemistry, biology etc... if there was any flawless evidence that a god was responsible for it all. No need to get emotional over facts. Nice grin btw...
JezaLoki 2 weeks ago
@JezaLoki The bottom line is that we don't know...we may formulate and discard models all the live long day, but in the end, we will know NOTHING about our answer of beginnings...so conjectures are accepted on faith...and this summons a great deal of introspection and thought....we must think objectively and ask certain questions like "Why does the cosmos exist?"...not necessarily how, but why...and similar questions. To question our existence to the heart of the matter is to reveal your answer.
FltOfTheGrndBnd 2 weeks ago
@FltOfTheGrndBnd Faith, belief without knowing, is not and never will be a positive thing in the process of finding truth and fact.
Perhaps "why does the cosmos exist?" is an important question for you, but not necessarily for others.
JezaLoki 2 weeks ago
@JezaLoki Well, I was trying to show you another way to look at it.....I'm not exactly trying to pose it as an "important" or necessary question...just a thought experiment, if you will. And as such, aren't a preferred method of thinking by everyone, but are interesting nonetheless. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean when you say faith without knowing is never positive. See next reply......
FltOfTheGrndBnd 2 weeks ago
@JezaLoki As I was saying...this is certainly your opinion...but I've always found it pleasing or encouraging to know...nothing. Many a scientist, including Newton and Einstein felt this way too...this doesn't drive my point, I know...but faith can be good when finding the truth...for instance, if the two of us were astronauts and the local dairy farmer hired us to go to the moon to see if it was an important asset to the cheese industry (grin). See next reply....my apologies for the length.
FltOfTheGrndBnd 2 weeks ago
@JezaLoki So we are trying to find the truth about the composition of the moon, right? So to get there we need to build a spaceship that needs to safely carry us and our shovels up there, and eventually our cheese or moon rocks back. Well, we must research....build this ship.....test...test some more...and never know! There is still possibility of the failure of the vehicle. So we ride in this ship on faith, see. And we find that there is no cheese. One last message to sum up.....
FltOfTheGrndBnd 2 weeks ago
@FltOfTheGrndBnd Yes I see what you are saying concerning faith in the context of the spaceship, but if we test and test more the spaceship as you said, then faith is redundant. I think you mean hope rather than faith. Hope can certainly be positive, especially when risking your life for cheese. I used to fly alot for work, and i always hoped the plane wouldnt crash. I never thought "I have faith that the plane wont crash", because how could I say I knew it wouldn't? Id be lying to myself.
JezaLoki 2 weeks ago
@JezaLoki This discussion has taken a course of academics and defining terms...since you seem to be the one setting the discrepancy between faith and hope....please define these in your own words so I can understand your point of view in more context...I do see where you're going...but I've had a similar discussion before and two dictionaries have had different definitions of faith, one being COMPLETE freedom from doubt, and another resembling your word, hope.
FltOfTheGrndBnd 2 weeks ago
@FltOfTheGrndBnd Faith for me means belief without knowing, but is still a belief, like any other belief. A persons beliefs need to be taken seriously. Hope for me is something you wish for, and particularly when you have no control, influence, or input. Some people have hope there is a god, others have faith.....but perhaps we shouldn't continue..... Im no academic, im just a moron with a computer and some spare time...
Though I don't wish to have the last word, I await your reply.
JezaLoki 1 week ago
@JezaLoki Well, I'll just say that Christ had a habit of hitting the nail on the head.....the Bible is chock-full of wisdom even you aren't a Christian. I encourage you to look at what it says and decide. This choice may be the most important decision in your life. Good luck.
FltOfTheGrndBnd 1 week ago
@FltOfTheGrndBnd Yeah, I was raised a catholic, I had that bullshit drilled into me until I was about 15. Then as the answers to my questions dried up, and were replaced with vague threats I knew that not only was I deceived into a disgraceful lie, but most of those who perpetuated the lie were ignorant bullies. Then I began to read about history, science, philosophy, and realised that people who say "i believe coz there has to be more than this" are blind to how awesome "this" really is.
JezaLoki 1 week ago
@JezaLoki But you as well said that it is never a good thing to accept things on faith in the course of seeking truth...and when it comes down to this level of discussion...it may be safe to call this vague. But back on doubt...as a Christian, I have times of doubt, but still have faith. But no matter, I have been given senses...and a reason to do with what I have to the best of my ability and find where or Whom I got it from. "To me it suffices to wonder at these secret
FltOfTheGrndBnd 2 weeks ago
@JezaLoki Oops......as I was saying......"To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." -Albert Einstein
FltOfTheGrndBnd 2 weeks ago
@JezaLoki So there's no cheese. In my opinion, this is a good thing to know, insofar that it was actually worth the effort. But to say it is NEVER good to accept things on faith in order to find the truth, I find, is absurd. Now your exact word was "positive" and you may have meant something besides "good" as I just stated....please clarify if your thoughts were misconstrued.....and again, excuse the long message.
FltOfTheGrndBnd 2 weeks ago
@PurpleSector So what caused the Big Bang?
AstralDragoon 3 months ago
@AstralDragoon Nobody knows. Theories and models should be made once we have more evidence or a better understanding of the principles of the Universe under such conditions. My point is that "we don't know therefore arbitrary being(s) which I invent and set the parameters for in my mind ('God(s)') did it" isn't a logical suggestion.
PurpleSector 3 months ago
@PurpleSector It could be true, but one would have to either have evidence that the said someone or something had existed or exists within the universe and that it directly influenced the Big Bang, or one would have to assume the universe is finite and have evidence that the said someone or something had direct influence on the initial conditions of the big bang while not being within the confines of the universe before the universe and time existed, which would likely be impossible to prove.
ult1m4t30wn4g3 3 months ago
@PurpleSector Why is so flawed to assume that there could not be an 0-entropy universe without an outside influence ?
similingjester 2 months ago in playlist More videos from sixtysymbols
@CGI4U
That quote is older than AC, sir. It is attributed to Hassan i Sabbah.
dmazmo 5 months ago
god is math
RONJAN2 6 months ago
wow, interesting stuff, I liked it
Relaxe 6 months ago
If we can use quantum computers to predict a spraying hose's water distribution does that mean it's not chaotic anymore?
I don't understand chaos though, aren't things only chaotic when we don't understand how to explain the system in motion?
Chomej 6 months ago
@Chomej No.
UncleKennybobs 6 months ago
@UncleKennybobs excellent feedback thanks
Chomej 6 months ago
If you use the simulator and keep the exact same speeds and angles on the pendulum test does it react in the exact same way?
Anxian 6 months ago
@Anxian Yes, but it is impossible to be that accurate. A computer simulating such motion may also give different results. As any future motion is an estimate within a range of uncertainties, the outcome becomes less and less known as uncertainties are cumulative. The results are chaotic. At the quantum level expecting identical results from identical experiments will leave you disappointed.
UncleKennybobs 6 months ago
what?!
07949435036 6 months ago
There is absolutely no relation between chaotic and random behaviors.
Even some very simple discrete systems exhibit chaotic behavior. If you are wondering what a discrete system is, a discrete system is one in which quantities like displacement, velocity are accurately calculated, with in the least count of measurement. There is no mean(avg) and/or standard deviation associated with them.
Randomness is ignorance and is inability to know d information with 100% accuracy.
kesav1985 6 months ago
@kesav1985 You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Go read a book.
UncleKennybobs 6 months ago
@UncleKennybobs
dude. WTF do you know abt this ? I am a PhD student working on this topic. u seem to be so arrogant at the same time ignorant.
kesav1985 6 months ago
@UncleKennybobs
you must explain to me what was wrong in what I said. WTF do u think u know abt chaos theory and butterfly effect ?
kesav1985 6 months ago
The universe Started, cooled down, formed matter, solar systems, earth, collision put earth on tilt, seasons to allow for life, moon to allow for tides where mollecules could begin, dinosaurs after billions of years, asteroid destoyed them to allow for mammals to succeed, apes, homosapians, brains get larger, my parents parents parents have sex, then they have sex and so on, the one sperm reaches the egg, and I get born and make a comment on YouTube 22 years later. NOW THATS CHAOS! and amazing.
stuartwwillis 7 months ago
I too was impressed by the super straight line drawing :P
8JSimo 7 months ago
Epileptic flower! XD
DarkIniseoghain 7 months ago
Do you recon that the human behavior can be predicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy provided enough data and computing power?
lambsio 7 months ago
@lambsio Yes, it's really interesting isnt it. Raises a lot of questions about perceived "freedom", and determinism and predicting the future. What I make of it is that there are simply too many variables and conditions, and then you have the trump card which is humans can make uniformed, irrational, illogical choices and conclusions.
QwoPhasaArius 7 months ago
@QwoPhasaArius
Well, i'd say our decisions are always based on something though. Even internal reasons that apparently have nothing to do with anything at the moment are always influenced by events in the past, upon one builds his character/personality.
In my point of view, the known universe is but a result of an incomprehensible and inconceivable chain of events and everything that happens, happens with a 100% chance, as their cause ONLY allows for THEM to happen.
But that's just me :D
lambsio 7 months ago
P.S.
Although some recent observations in the quantum physics are starting to throw me off my feet!
P.P.S.
Only now i noticed that i replied 2 times (now 3) to the same person!!
lambsio 7 months ago
@lambsio If we were to jump back in time a few seconds, theres a percentage chance that I would have chosen to not reply to your comment regardless of my temperament or personality, but due to unpredictable thought patterns.
QwoPhasaArius 7 months ago
@QwoPhasaArius
But wouldn't you say that your action was a result of all the factors that influenced you in every possible way? If yes, then there is always a 100% chance that you replied to my comment because the factors in which you based your decision on would be exactly the same.
lambsio 7 months ago
@lambsio I certainly assume there is a truly "chaotic" factor in thought. For me, imagining a 100% chance that I replied to that comment is ignoring all the other influences,(for example) such as I was thirsty at the time, or I hadnt finished watching the video, or I needed to use the toilet, or I had an email I needed to reply to and so on. To reply to you wasnt a conscious choice based on defined points, but there was an unpredictable internal processes going on that can have gone either way.
QwoPhasaArius 7 months ago
@QwoPhasaArius
Unpredictable or imposible to account for every factor an therefore impossible to attempt to make an accurate prediction?
lambsio 7 months ago
@lambsio I would think so, yeah.
QwoPhasaArius 7 months ago
nothing in this talks about chaos...
BrokenBrilliance 7 months ago
@BrokenBrilliance everything in this talk is about chaos.
mikeswbr 7 months ago
@mikeswbr no, true chaos is not described here. this talks about the buterfly effect which is not chaos, chaos is random, with no logical explanation or the ability to predict it. not because we don't know but because it truely is chaotic
BrokenBrilliance 7 months ago
@BrokenBrilliance well I can give you a list of textbooks that will disagree. chaotic motion is not random, but it is unpredictable. by the way you have a cyclic definition of the word chaos.
mikeswbr 5 months ago
@mikeswbr and I can give you a list of textbooks that do agree, if it is not random then it is predictable with enough processing power and data
BrokenBrilliance 5 months ago
@BrokenBrilliance This is the beauty of chaos theory. It is not predictable unless you have infinite processing power, because the simulation requires an infinitesimal time-step (or at most, planck-time timestep). A simple example is found in the three-body problem, which has been proven to be deterministic yet no closed mathematical solution exists.
mikeswbr 5 months ago
@BrokenBrilliance Let me begin. "Chaos and Fractals" by Peitgen et. al, page 14, "determinism and predictability are not equivalent".
mikeswbr 4 months ago
Fascinating. I could watch these videos all day.
Jordcuk 7 months ago
I don't like that view of the "butterfly effect" on chaos. Why would you say that that specific butterfly caused the event? It seems to me that everything is causing everything else all the time...Isn't it?
Heli0Jr 7 months ago
"If you really want to get something random, get two very simple systems and let them talk to each other." Sounds like chaos theory could be applied to politics.
roadkillrabbit69 7 months ago
that flower looks demonic 0.o
FancyThatBumNow 7 months ago
Lovely stuff.
RobRoyal06 7 months ago
Very interesting, and some very good explaining:) Thank you.
ghoulars 7 months ago
I love the flower-sprinkler in motion, it's awesome :D
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 7 months ago
The main reason why I watch sixty symbols rather than the other science video sis because there is no gay music playing in the background to make things sound 'spooky'
Rockyroopam 7 months ago
Why dont they make snooker tables with semicircular ends like that? That would make things much more fun :-p.
WhichDoctor1 7 months ago
I thought the angle of incidence and reflection were defined as the angle the trajectory makes with the normal to the surface... not the compliment. I suppose it's essentially the same. This video would have been a good excuse for them to get an air hockey table to demonstrate a (near) frictionless surface.
I'm glad they didn't use one of those annoying inflatable advertising wacky flailing arm men... things.
WhiteRAZOR 7 months ago
you guys continue to blow me away consistently - this is one of the best videos i've seen in a long, long while
frustumator 7 months ago
It's about monthes now that I watch your videos and realise I didn't even subscribe because I was so sure to have done it by reflex... Let's do it now... XD
Anyhow, nice video, very clear explanations, as ever.
Acrimonator 7 months ago
I'm not sure why but I found this one of the Sixty Symbols videos particularly great! Well done explaining, nice examples, and gee the professor can scetch :o
Indeed keep on making work of this, the result is great. fascinating!
~Nout
mopsnuf 7 months ago
As an electrical engineer I love these videos and they have almost made me wish I had been a physicist . . . almost. Now I'm going to go back to designing flying cars.
XopePoquar 7 months ago
Can quantum effects be magnified into the macroscopic realm via the butterfly effect? If so, even controlling initial conditions to absolute precision would not produce the same result every time.
iantheuncountable 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALIEN LIFE FORM DISCOVERED IN NEW JERSEY!!!!! /watch?v=sNYUoSKf2YI
bubbaberra7 7 months ago
why didn't i think the double pendulum as my science project??
MidnightRedemption 7 months ago
I like the flower sprinkle!!
dronexmail 7 months ago
I absolutely love these videos. Thanks ever so much for doing them sixtysymbols.
BarryDong 7 months ago
This videography was chaotic too
LTF85199 7 months ago
I love the reverb sound in the room with the snooker table. Makes me think about how the sound is randomly traveling around that room to produce that familiar noise I call reverb. Another great video, thanks.
beefmaster7 7 months ago
He draws incredibly straight lines...
xtechbiz 7 months ago 2
@xtechbiz i thought of that too!!
AntiEmoMetalhead92 7 months ago
SCIENCE TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
TheLifePerfect 7 months ago
the flower hose sprinkler thing is awesome
KaoFamJK 7 months ago
nicely done! featured on Gizmodo again!!
mangoismycat 7 months ago
Love this channel, its absolutely brilliant and as far as I'm aware unique on youtube for its intellectual prowess of contributors (the lecturers), colourful presentation and accessibility for the layman. Unfortunately I watched all 140+ previous videos in about a week and now it seems like agony waiting for each next one!
blueandwhite01 7 months ago
I can't help but notice how the balls in this video are regarded without question as separate objects from the table. What are the objective criteria for something to be a separate object?
Gogargoat 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As you did the Snooker demonstration, I recalled seeing champion billiard players do trick shots. These players could consistently hit a cue ball with speed and direction attributes that were within the tolerance required to accomplish complex shots. Years ago, when I spoke to a player they said the key was careful set up and sufficient speed and spin ("English") to overcome the friction of the felt. This explanation is perfectly consistent with what you demonstrated. Great demo.
0gods 7 months ago
Comment removed
0gods 7 months ago
I'm thinking this theory could be applied to refute modern economic theory in favor of a non-interfering Austrian approach.
Killedkennyagain 7 months ago
I have a question about the last part of the video.
You drew a table that is almost elliptical except that it had a pair of sides which are parallel. What if the table were a perfect ellipse? Would it be that no matter from where you hit the ball, it will always reach the same point, x? (Excluding hitting it from the foci of the ellipse.)
frichikendz 7 months ago
what does sixtysymbols refer to?
oORoBeOo 7 months ago 5
@oORoBeOo check out our sixty symbols website... we started making videos about sixty different physics and astronomy symbols... we've now done more than 130 I think!!!
sixtysymbols 7 months ago 21
@2112murphy The butterfly affect theory is not about how to play snooker, but more then a way to explain why we bother with games tournaments.
If everything was so simple, two masters of there field, will never lose.
That minor miscalculating, which are out of our reach (this moment) give us "random" and "non predictable future".
eliranrdt 7 months ago
Comment removed
eliranrdt 7 months ago
SNOOKER! This makes me want to play billiards.
12gaugebleachdrinker 7 months ago
*100% reliable model
wantonmechanics 7 months ago
Great video Brady.
Can I ask a question? Are the tiny variations that affect something like weather predictions computable in principle, or are they so small that the uncertaincy principle would prevent us from ever having a complete and 100 reliable model?
Thanks for your efforts across all the Nottingham science channels.
wantonmechanics 7 months ago
@wantonmechanics im Guessing theoretically it would be possible if you knew every single variable perfectly. But in practice it's a bit hard to find out that information. :/
G3org3Master 7 months ago
When Brady says that because a computer can compute the trajectories then system isn't chaotic at 4:10, he was incorrect. Brady was using the popular definition of "chaotic" which is synonymous with "random," which is different than what the video is talking about. The video is talking more about "chaos" in the sense of "sensitivity to initial conditions."
madprocess 7 months ago 3
@madprocess hmmm, maybe Brady said that so the "popular definition" could be dealt with?
sixtysymbols 7 months ago 19
@sixtysymbols That's probably it. I don't remember, but has the distinction between the two definitions been dealt with in a video?
madprocess 7 months ago
On the subject of Chemistry and Chaos, it would be fantastic if you could show the Belousov-Zhabotinskii reaction; visually very impressive too (good video!)
bluefish101 7 months ago
@2112murphy The point is it is not easy to predict.. one slight difference would make the ball go in a completely different direction, do you understand??
G3org3Master 7 months ago
often these videos help me in understanding some things of physics i dont understand... great job guys!!! keep it up!!!
ibook06 7 months ago
Guys, how about you focus your discussion on butterfly effect instead?
Great video, Brady! I wonder where do you get the ideas for those videos. Are these topics suggested by the viewers?
Also glad the professors have spent their time talking about science. I like academic environments, these people are usually fun to hang out with.
rageagainstthebath 7 months ago 2
@weberbeat @culwin culwins comment to someone (just below) puts it better than I could.
Why would one just deprive oneself of further knowledge in order to keep carrying around a resentment or 'chip on the shoulder'?
jeebersjumpincryst 7 months ago
Please do one on telekinesis!
HapPyDong746 7 months ago
His lines are amazingly straight.
BIoodBath 7 months ago 4
I love your videos, thank you
UKDiscoDave 7 months ago
0:29 . no difference? I didn't know mother nature actually does rounding.
even if the change is .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ad some more. and then 1.. over the eons of time this change will grow. Or are there actually proven valleys of action that are completely negatet, even in an open system?
ultraverydeepfield 7 months ago
@ultraverydeepfield Don't tell mother nature (or even God) what to do. Quantum fuzziness implies that even the universe itself doesn't carry around infinite precision of all variables. Something even as massive as the flap of butterfly wings gets rounded out through the fuzziness to some degree.
ShallowThoughts 7 months ago
One of the best videos you've produced Brady. Good job!
Stickalas 7 months ago
Thank you!
pbezunartea 7 months ago
@resinatedhuman I'm not remotely qualified to speak about what is right for schools..
Tell you what though... I'd love to make a video series about the Koran... That would be really fascinating... It's also a really significant book and I know quite little about it.
sixtysymbols 7 months ago
I liked the trail effect with the long exposure shutter to show the chaotic motion of the double pendulum.
If you have AfterEffects you can make a very effective trails using the 'time echo' filter, which I have used to great satisfaction for tracing the path of my sister's crazy dog's tail...
Hewpie 7 months ago
I love the channel, and I'm subscribed.
But I have to say something about the approach of scientists to the term chaos.
There is no chaos in our existing. There is only limitation and ignorance in the eyes of the observer.
The term chaos can not be used as an explanation to an outcome from a scientific observation, but more as a current ability level of science to handle all the parameters in the equation.
Or in other word, in a non-limited science, the professor wallet was a 100 £ lighter :)
eliranrdt 7 months ago
@eliranrdt IMHO you are confusing the every day meaning of chaos, with a chaotic system in Mathematics, and that's what they showed, brilliantly, as always.
They are talking about systems that are very sensitive to their initial conditions... not about science "abilities". The theory has plenty of applications in all kinds of fields: economics, physics, biology... to name a few.
pbezunartea 7 months ago 2
@pbezunartea It's not much of confusion between the mathematical term and the daily use.
In the pendulum explanation it was the mathematic, but the snooker example was the chaos I was talking about, and the challenge to repeat perfectly of the shot, had nothing to do with the mathematics, only with the disability of use to control all the parameters.
The butterfly affect came to show the order in the causal system, which nothing is random. Not even the quantum world.
eliranrdt 7 months ago
@eliranrdt Yes. If all the balls were in *exactly* the same positions and he hit the cue ball at *exactly* the same speed and spin, the outcome would be the same. The point is that even a tiny difference would change the result hugely.
SchumiUCD 7 months ago
@SchumiUCD Youtube give only 500 letters so my original comment got shorter. In my original comment, I talked about the *exactly* and mention that too will not be enough, because your environment had minor changes, the balls will lose their shape on impact with the other balls, the surface will not be the same as before the first shot.
Our lack of ability to collect and manage the minor parameters, is the reason we call anything we can't figure out as chaos.
eliranrdt 7 months ago
I'd love a super-slow motion video of the double pendulum light show. :P
gwaur 7 months ago
Can you do a video on superconductors? Thanks!
Patrickssj6 7 months ago
F=ma!! the answer to life!!!
godwinmadho 7 months ago
Fascinating material, with engaging speakers and nice visual aids.
Thank you all for the time and energy you put into these.
Etaukan 7 months ago 57
@Etaukan you're welcome... comments like yours make it much more fun to do!!!
sixtysymbols 7 months ago 21
@sixtysymbols "I will give you a million pounds if you replicate that shot"
ok then *replays the video from that shot*
where is my million pounds?
miesrah12 7 months ago
You British/Aussies and your fancy names. Over in Canada we call a Bunimovich stadium a hockey rink. Much simpler to say. :P
13someguy13 7 months ago
Fabulous. I'm a high school student at the top of my class and I love learning about random phenomena like this. It was very odd when I was watching this video because I have thought about things like this before (such as a fan rooting for their favorite baseball team in front of the TV affecting the outcome of the game) without even knowing it had an actual name. This was the first video of yours I've watched and I must say, I won't miss any future videos. Keep it up!
joecapps1127 7 months ago
@joecapps1127 Well done for being top of yr class joe!!! if u like this one, subscribe, & make sure you go and check out the rest of the vids on "sixty symbols", and also "periodic videos", and Bradys other channels - Backstage Science, words of the world, trees of the world, bibledex, Fav Scientist. I cant recommend them strongly enough, and reckon everyone would agree they are some of the best, if not THE best, yt has to offer! tell all yr class mates too! :)
jeebersjumpincryst 7 months ago
@jeebersjumpincryst How did bibledex get into that list? On that channel you can see theologians waffling and saying absolutely nothing. You can clearly see what happens to the mind if you do nothing but read ancient texts. What a difference between that and SixtySymbols!
weberbeat 7 months ago
@weberbeat to quote Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion:
"I must admit that even I am a little taken aback at the biblical ignorance commonly displayed by people educated in more recent decades than I was."
AND
"I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education."
I like making Bibledex videos. I learn stuff. But just don't subscribe if you don't like them!
sixtysymbols 7 months ago
@sixtysymbols I know the bible very well. The more I read, the more disgusted I was. Of course I also read the god delusion and I'm pretty sure, RD would agree with me.
weberbeat 7 months ago
@weberbeat why do you give religion the position of a counterpart to science. It's like your approving there doctrine to the important level of science.
If one man stands with a sign "THE END IS NEAR" no one take him seriously. But go ahead and argue with him, and you will get a Listening crowd.
eliranrdt 7 months ago
@eliranrdt Most schools where I live teach religions of the world, including Christianity, Islam, etc.
They aren't trying to get people to join a religion; they are studying the religion and the texts from a historical, philosophical, cultural, and anthropological perspective.
They also have classes about mythology, and most colleges I know of have Greek mythology classes.
You don't think any of that is important? Shouldn't one know about the religions that most people in the world believe in?
culwin 7 months ago
@culwin
My point of view on r