This is a little nitpicking on my part, but my recollection is the transistors in a logic gate operate in the linear region. Transistors in an analog amp operate in the saturation region (which is forward-active in the BJT world).

yep

Probably an oversimplification. I think the 'digital' part you are referring to is called a "step function", that is, turning from a 0 to a 1 instantaneously (or the other direction), and definitively non-linear. The "linear region" could be defined as a circuit transfer function which could be modeled with something like I = E/R and having no higher-order terms. A forward-biased semiconductor junction does not have a straight line in it anywhere, but changes in relation to the current flow. Being predictable and repeatable, it is not chaotic in the sense that you mean.

Since our electronics can't instantly change from "no volts" to "some volts", it is an "analog" of that step-function behavior, hence the term (analog: "relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position or voltage").

Well said! Imo, very accurate. You're right, most people don't get it and when you try to explain to them the why, who & how, it becomes too much for them to handle and then they shut down. What else can you do?

For biological systems, chaos theory has limited scope and application. More relevant is “complexity theory”, a successor to chaos theory that encompasses aspects of life that are not fully addressed by classical mechanics or chaos theory. These include dynamic structure, self-organization, nonlinearity and emergent behavior. Many of these attributes also apply to political systems – see https://complexityandliberty.wordpress.c...

I think you're right. The point is the word "chaos" has implications. "Chaos Theory" likely has very specific limitations as to what the theorists are talking about. As with most things it is not what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it is what you do know, that just ain't so. If they would hang their hat on "initial conditions" it would be less confusing to the general, I'll only read the headline type of public. Every theory has presuppositions. If you accept those, then the end product makes sense. Even in the (ostensibly) hardest of hard sciences, physics, you have to have certain pre-existing beliefs. Physicist seem to struggle a lot with the inability to bring the micro and the macro together with few if any ever saying, "maybe back here in the beginning, we got something wrong."

I think there is more to it than that. We can understand the relationships and subtleties and still have a "chaotic" (in the physics sense of unpredictable) system simply because outcomes are too sensitive to initial conditions and/or slight variations. I don't think "chaos theory" assumes the laws are not there.

All science is about attempting to find patterns (this is related to that in this way). I guess first we have to say, "Ok, there is no 'chaos'" everything is lawful in the universe. We just don't understand all the relationships and subtleties in those complex and interactive relationships/laws. Just because we can't figure out the laws in a timely enough manner to be useful does not indicate the laws are not there.

I suspect "marketing" played a role in the naming of chaos theory, yes: much like "catastrophe theory" which was popular before it. But it isn't entirely misleading. Think of it as an attempt to find patterns in or from apparent chaos.

There will always be people looking to get past the fog, but the sheep masses, filled with talking points and distractions (created chaos) if you will, remain unwilling to search for truth and reason. They are happy to remain in the dark. The boobs are the most dangerous as they let the nefarious ones run the show from the shadows. Obama is having strings pulled, he is not that bright on his own to destroy our economy. However, with those of the the ilk of Valerie Jarrett or Soros, he knows how and when to create chaotic distractions while the media ignores what really matters. I worked in print news, and I know that what mattered did not make print, it was about greased palms and power controlling what was printed. The masses believe what they see in the news, even when it might have involved illegal actions to reach the glowing results they are told were agreed upon. The Delphi Technique is in use from local to national, and it does a fine job of brainwashing. The NGOs are very organized and create chaos to promote Agenda 21, while the bankers in Basil II met and set the masses up - but how many of the masses read about it, they were involved in created chaos about whatever the Oval Office wanted or Congress, which is little different when ti comes to wanting one worlk government.

That may be a copyright infringement....

They have been saying that about the weather in New England, long before the west was settled ;)

Nice!

Apocryphal, but as good an explanation as any. Murphy's law has a corollary. It's called The Gumperson Corollary: "And at the very worst time." So the entire law reads: "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong, and at the very worst time."

If you live in Arizona you'll know what chaos is. We have a saying out here "Wait five minutes the weather will change." "This is the Wild ,Wild West." "With each change in elevation their is a change in the weather(also the temperature)" So, this is the State of Chaos.

The media are hugely biased, not consistent, or always competent. You're right: not everything gets reported, and/or not right away. Someone has to find out something and decide that it's worth pursuing.

But somehow you know about the Bilderbergers, and UN Agenda 21 - and wasn't JFK supposed to have crossed the Mafia too?

I'm not saying there no groups pushing their own agendas and using the hand of the govt to do that. I'm saying it's really hard to keep that stuff truly secret and to keep everyone in the group in line towards one goal. That's not how most organizations work. Information gets out; people become disenchanted and tattle.

Humans want to make sense out of the chaos of social action and they'll find patterns everywhere; that's why we see faces in clouds. These theories fall prey to confirmation bias.

Besides, are these nefarious govt actors you're referring to somehow hugely more competent than the boobs that run our govt every day?

I read an obit of a guy who worked with Murphy - and it explained how the Law came into being. Murphy was an engineer on some of the early testing of g-forces. It was done with very fast cars on the Nevada flats, and involved testing equipment with multiple switches.

The car was all set up by his assistant and Murphy drove it 200+ miles an hour, coming back with bloodied eyes from the g-forces. That's when the assistant told him he'd accidentally set all the switches the wrong way.

Once again I fear the hyjacking of language rears it's ugly head. "Chaos" implies lack of control and unpredictability. The theory with that name just notes it matters were the variable(s) are at when you start noticing. Imprecise prediction is not the same as unpredictable (chaotic if you will). It is an unfortunate name.

It is amazing the secrets that can be kept when evil is afoot. The Bildebergers manage to keep their goings on out of the mainstream press each year, because the owners are members. The CIA keeps all manner of secrets, including past brainwashing. How many incidents of testing on service men went unknown for years? Even know, as heh public is dumbed dow, more and more is not known as they fail to look past TV reality shows. How many people still do not know that HAARP existed? How many people still do not know what UN Agenda 21 is or how it will change all of our lives? Why was Obama's connection to Marxist theory of Saul Alinsky never spoken of during the primary elections? The public is is easily distracted, apathetic, and do not take the time to research what happens in front of them. JFK crossed the Federal Reserve, of course many people have no idea it is not part of government, so, there you go.

Good point

Not only is that "not contradicted" by the article, the article says just that :-)

I think that in the case of climate, the model is being driven by ideology.

+1 for the Asimov nod

Yea, Ioved those books. It's been a lot of years since I first read them, but I've often thought of re-reading them.