You know what, this chaos theory thing is very interesting. Yesterday, when i started reading a book about it, after the first few pages, i told my mom to warn me if i become too much of a theoretical physician. True, there are some expressions that i had to look up in a dictionary for their exact meaning (in chaos theory, where one millionth difference from the real value can cause huge differences in the outcome, i need to know each phrase very well), such as determinism. As of now, after the first chapter, the only thing i’m exactly sure now is that this will be very interesting, in addition to befriending the whole idea of chaos and such. Though i don’t really see a practical use to it (am i really such a practical mind?), it’s very interesting to finally read a precise description of that popular “butterfly-effect”, about which Ian Malcolm was talking in Jurassic Park (the first and original).
It also shows a problem (or at least now i think so): computers can’t really understand anything like a human can. If you see a Lorenz attractor, you immediately see some system in it, and can also tell it looks like a butterfly (this must be God’s joke, that it resembles the shape of the animal used in the most known example of this theory – that would be the butterfly effect i wrote about before and will write about later), but for a computer, it couldn’t be predicted, it couldn’t be totally calculated, it’s just a… something. We can see it as a whole, but a computer can only check one point at a time, and it works in a binary way, so that point is either there or not. It doesn’t matter if the point beside that one is indeed on the line. I wonder if a computer using some numeral system more complicated than binary would be possible or useful.
Anyway, the butterfly effect is… well, either look it up, or wait for me finishing the book, because i won’t write about it now.