Chaotic models do not at all differ in their long-term equilibrium properties. It is how you get to the equilibrium that differs.
For example, the three body problem in gravity is non-determnistic. Newton was quite frustrated by this discovery. However, three bodies in motion do follow predictable paths. These have always been predictable going back to the time of the ancients. Otherwise, we could never predict, say, solar eclipses.
posted on 03/16/2003 10:07:53 AM PST
by Fractal Trader
(Put that MOAB where the sun doesn't shine, Saddam!)
To: Fractal Trader
I like your screen name, we must chat sometime about trading.
Anyway, in physical processes that do not involve free will of humans, I suspect you are correct that in the long run, equilibrium process prevails. For example, an avalanche is a chaotic process, while slowly sliding down the mountain is equilibrium. In both cases, the snow gets to the bottom.
But rapid climate change could be devastating to the humans as opposed to gradual change. A gradual warming can be handled, a quick global warming could be catastrophic. In both cases, you get to the same place, but a chaotic change would be a difficult thing to handle.
In chaotic systems that involve human free will, chaos and equilibrium do not always get to the same end result. A financial panic can destroy a lot of basically sound companies and institutions which never come back to where they would have been under equilibrium conditions.
posted on 03/16/2003 10:48:54 AM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson