3 ms·
I don't understand this article at all. >A SmartMoney.com market analysis from 2007 cites Lorenz, then suggests that hypothetical problems at Sony could affect
by oarabbus_ 7y ago
I don't understand this article at all.
>A SmartMoney.com market analysis from 2007 cites Lorenz, then suggests that hypothetical problems at Sony could affect a string of shippers, retailers, and investors: "One butterfly, in this case a Japanese butterfly, sets off the entire chain." Even applied to society, rather than nature, such claims merit skepticism.
What's wrong with that? Is he blissfully unaware of, for example, the Maersk hack and how it "butterfly effected" the entire chain?
- quelltext 7y agoThe author's point is that anytime the butterfly effect is used in this way (identifying the singular cause of a chain) it insinuates that we can always pinpoint such a butterfly if we look very hard or that there is one single such butterfly causing the chain of effect in the first place. However Lorenz (at least per the author) tried to make the exact opposite point. Among many many variables if one slightly changes (e.g. flap or no flap of a butterfly's wings somewhere) it can affect a lot, but we don't know which one. I don't know it's wrong per say to use it as most people do but I see the author'a point. It's often (falsely) used when there is a chain of ovents and we know which thing caused that chain.
- danielparks 7y agoThis issue is that we can draw a causal line back to a single event, e.g. the hack. Their definition (presumably the original definition) of the butterfly effect requires that it be untraceable. If you make a tiny change to initial conditions, you can’t accurately predict the outcome without a complete model.