chaos <=> paradox. Prove me wrong. A challenge.

From: Lefty (Ye_at_h.Right)
Date: 09/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:47:16 GMT

Allow me to introduce myself. I am not James Harris.

What I have is a very sketchy conjecture which is not very formalised. I'm
going to toss it out there and if any person here has the hutzpa to prove me
wrong, then let that person know that the gauntlet has been wagged in
his/her FACE.

First let me say that I know the definitions of these things, and I
understand that I am scribbling. But I'm tossing it out there anyway. May
the bloodbath begin.

Conjecture:
chaos <=> paradox.

Justification:
We know that
order + randomness <=> chaos.

Assertion:
logic + nonsense <=> paradox.

If logic = order, and randomness = nonsense, then chaos would be roughly the
equivalent of paradox.

Discussion:
Obviously, chaos and paradox have two very different definitions, but their
"meaning and implication" in the real world are not so separated. Paradoxes
are typically circular things which simply reiterate over and over < key
word, "iterate". Chaos is confounding for a variety of reasons, for instance
the implications of nonintegral dimensionality in dynamical systems in the
real world. Perhaps these two are not really so different.

While not identical, logic and order are related and the difference between
these is primarily semantic, same goes for the difference between randomness
and nonsense. In fact, nonsense might be a good working definition of
randomness. If the differences in definitions here are primarily semantic,
then what I really need to show is that :
logic + nonsense <=> paradox.

Now
 logic + nonsense <=?=> paradox
may very well be more of a philosophical question, but it seems pretty
straightforward.

For the sake of argument I declare myself to be right and defy you to prove
me wrong, or cowar forever in the shadows from the light of brighter truths.

You may comence firing.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: chaos <=> paradox. Prove me wrong. A challenge.
    ... There is chaos theory, which has ... > much less to do with randomness than you might think. ... For my purposes I'll define paradox as (I'll come back to ... It is a hybrid of logic and nonsense. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: chaos <=> paradox. Prove me wrong. A challenge.
    ... > systems which exhibit order and randomness simultaneously. ... > Look at any paradox you wish. ... It is a hybrid of logic and nonsense. ... inconsistencies that were found in attempts to formalize certain ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: chaos <=> paradox. Prove me wrong. A challenge.
    ... > What I have is a very sketchy conjecture which is not very formalised. ... what do you mean by chaos? ... much less to do with randomness than you might think. ... what do you mean by paradox? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: chaos <=> paradox. Prove me wrong. A challenge.
    ... >>These are neither helpful nor correct definitions. ... Chaos: "a hybrid of order and randomness". ... paradox: "The substatiation of mutually exclusive events". ...
    (sci.math)
  • >uncle< >uncle< >uncle< >uncle< >uncle< Re: chaos <=>
    ... But this does not neccesarily mean that I wont be back with more nonsense, ... > is that a paradox does not necessarily deal with events at all. ... >> you attack my argument at the least oppotunistic point. ...
    (sci.math)