Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, it's me Josh, your old pal, and for
Speaker 1: this week's s Y s K Selects, I've chosen How
Speaker 1: Chaos Theory Changed the Universe first came out in July
Speaker 1: of two thousand sixteen, and I have to say I
Speaker 1: think it's um one of the better science e Stuff
Speaker 1: you should Know episodes of all time, because there's just
Speaker 1: something about this that grabbed me and Chuck by the
Speaker 1: callers and said I'm interesting, aren't I? And we said, yes,
Speaker 1: you definitely are. And this one has everything. It has science,
Speaker 1: it has philosophy, it has our understanding of the universe.
Speaker 1: Is just all around good episode. So I hope you
Speaker 1: enjoy it as much as I did listening to it. Again.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a production of I
Speaker 1: Heart Radios How Stuff Works. Hey, and welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Josh Clark with Charles W Chuck Bryant and there's
Speaker 1: Jerry over there. So this is stuff you should know,
Speaker 1: the podcast about Chaos Theory. Like, uh, have you ever
Speaker 1: seen Event Horizon? I did not bad? Great movie? Are
Speaker 1: you crazy? I think it was great? Oh it was
Speaker 1: so imagining it. I thought it was okay, it was
Speaker 1: like a love crafty and thing in outer space. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I loved it was all right, I love crafted it.
Speaker 1: I liked it. Um, that's what I think of when
Speaker 1: I think of chaos. You know, there's that one part
Speaker 1: where they kind of give you like a glimpse behind,
Speaker 1: like the dimension that this action is taking place in,
Speaker 1: to see the chaos underneath. And you should check that
Speaker 1: out again. Yeah, I think about Jurassic Park and Jeff
Speaker 1: Goldblum as as the creep Dr Malcolm explaining chaos in
Speaker 1: the little auto driving suv or whatever that was. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what it was called in the script, the auto
Speaker 1: driving suv scene. Yeah. And you know what, actually rewatched
Speaker 1: the scene and it confirmed two things. One is that
Speaker 1: he uh, he actually did a pretty decent job for
Speaker 1: a Hollywood movie with a very rudimentary explanation of chaos. Um,
Speaker 1: and you watched it for this yeah, yeah, just that scene.
Speaker 1: And then it also confirmed of what a creep that
Speaker 1: character was. Yeah. If you watch that scene, he's like,
Speaker 1: you know, he was all gross and flirty with her
Speaker 1: right in front of her ex but there's just you know,
Speaker 1: he's talking to her. I didn't even notice this at first.
Speaker 1: He like he just like touches her hair out of
Speaker 1: nowhere for no reason. He's just talking to her and
Speaker 1: he just like grabs her hair and touches it. And
Speaker 1: I'm like, what a creep. I know, if you look closely,
Speaker 1: you can see the hormones emerging through his chest hair. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I love Jeff Goldblum. It's not a reflection on him.
Speaker 1: He was basically doing Jeff Goldbloom. Well that's what. Yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: he's Jeff Goldblum, but I don't think that's how in
Speaker 1: the manner in which he speaks. But I don't think
Speaker 1: he's a creep, do you. Wow, I've got nothing against
Speaker 1: Jeff gold I think he's a I think he's doing
Speaker 1: Jeff Goldblum. It was also a sign of the times,
Speaker 1: Like if that movie were made today, doctor what was
Speaker 1: her name in the movie? Think, Yeah, Dr Sadler would
Speaker 1: be like, it's very inappropriate to stroke my hair. Yeah, like,
Speaker 1: don't touch me. But this was the nineties, nineties, free wheeling,
Speaker 1: it was eight it was nineties, it was the early
Speaker 1: mid nineties thing. The book came out in and in
Speaker 1: the book, uh Ian Malcolm, who's a Kayetician? Yeah, creep Kaetician? Right?
Speaker 1: He um? He he goes into even more depth about chaos.
Speaker 1: But that was I mean, that was the first time
Speaker 1: I ever heard of chaos theory was from Jurassic Park,
Speaker 1: and um it really it was really misleading. I think
Speaker 1: the entire term chaos is very misleading as far as
Speaker 1: the general public goes as from what I researched in
Speaker 1: this this for this article, well, yeah, I mean you
Speaker 1: hear the word chaos as an English speaker and you
Speaker 1: think frenetic and crazy, out of control. Yeah, and that's
Speaker 1: not what it means in terms of science like this, right.
Speaker 1: What it means, I guess we can say up front
Speaker 1: is is basically the idea that complex systems do not
Speaker 1: behave in very neat ways that we can easily grasp, understand,
Speaker 1: or measure right, and not even even simple systems don't.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it doesn't always have to be complex. But um,
Speaker 1: I want to give a shout out in addition to
Speaker 1: our own article to uh when you know, when it
Speaker 1: comes to stuff like this, the brain breaking stuff for me, man,
Speaker 1: this is a brain breaker. You know how I always
Speaker 1: go to like blank blank for kids because it always
Speaker 1: helps if there's a dinosaur mascot on the page. It's
Speaker 1: a sure thing, we can understand it. But the best
Speaker 1: explanation for all this stuff that I found on the
Speaker 1: internet was from a website called a bar Um A
Speaker 1: B A R I. M. Publications, which turns out to
Speaker 1: be a website about biblical patterns and sandwiched in the middle,
Speaker 1: there is a really great, easy to understand uh series
Speaker 1: of pages on chaos there. So I was like, man,
Speaker 1: I get it now, I mean in a rudimentary way, right, Well, yeah, um,
Speaker 1: I think even a lot of people who deal with
Speaker 1: systems that display chaotic behavior, which I guess is to
Speaker 1: say basically all systems eventually under the right conditions, UM,
Speaker 1: don't necessarily understand chaos. Yeah. And they define a complex
Speaker 1: system is specifically. It doesn't mean just like, oh it's complex,
Speaker 1: I mean it is, but specifically, Um, they define it
Speaker 1: in a way that helped me understand. It's a system
Speaker 1: that has so much motion, so many elements that are
Speaker 1: in motion, moving parts. Yeah, that it takes like a
Speaker 1: computer to calculate all the possibilities of like what that
Speaker 1: could look like five minutes from now, ten years from now.
Speaker 1: So before computers came around, we before the quantum mechanical revolution.
Speaker 1: It was there's a lot more basic. It was like
Speaker 1: what comes up must come down, stuff like that. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about that, Chuckers, because when you're talking about chaos theory,
Speaker 1: it helps to understand how it revolutionized the universe by
Speaker 1: getting a clear picture of how we understood the universe
Speaker 1: leading up to the discovery of chaos. Right, So, prior
Speaker 1: to the um the scientific Revolution, everybody was like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: it's it's God. The Earth is at the center of
Speaker 1: the universe, and God is spinning everything around like a top. Right.
Speaker 1: It was all a theistic explanation. Then the scientific revolution
Speaker 1: happens and people start applying things like math and making
Speaker 1: like mathematical discoveries and and and figuring out that there
Speaker 1: are there's order. They're finding order in patterns and predictability
Speaker 1: to the universe if you can apply mathematics to it. Yes, specifically,
Speaker 1: if you can apply mathematics to the starting point right, right, So,
Speaker 1: if you can if you can um figure out how
Speaker 1: a system works mathematically speaking, right, you can go in
Speaker 1: and plug in whatever coordinates you want to and watch
Speaker 1: it go. You can predict what what the outcome is
Speaker 1: going to be, and what this is the it's based
Speaker 1: on what at the time was a totally revolutionary idea
Speaker 1: um By Initially, I think the cart was the first
Speaker 1: one to kind of say cause and effect is a
Speaker 1: pretty big part of our universe, right. Yeah. It was
Speaker 1: sort of like where this is the the sixteen hundreds where
Speaker 1: early science met philosophy. They kind of complemented one another
Speaker 1: as far as something that's we're talking about determinism, right,
Speaker 1: So that was the kind of the seeds of determinism
Speaker 1: was the scientific revolution, and like you said, where philosophy
Speaker 1: and science came together in the form of Descartes, right.
Speaker 1: And then Newton came along and we did a whole
Speaker 1: episode on him. Yeah, January of this year. That was
Speaker 1: a good one. It was really good. Like I think
Speaker 1: you said in that episode that there's possibly no scientists
Speaker 1: that changed the world more than Newton has. He's he's
Speaker 1: got legs. People shouted out others and email, but I'll
Speaker 1: just say he's at the near the top for sure
Speaker 1: with some other people. The cream. So Newton came along
Speaker 1: and Newton said that was his name, Isaac the Cream Newton, right,
Speaker 1: and anytime he don't to be like cream, Yeah, you
Speaker 1: just got creamed. So I thought he was a boxer.
Speaker 1: He's a basketball player. He was much more well known
Speaker 1: as a boxer, but he definitely could dunk as a
Speaker 1: as a B baller. So um Man, that threw me
Speaker 1: off a little bit. Yeah, the cream comes along and uh,
Speaker 1: he basically says, watch this, dude, this causing effect thing
Speaker 1: you're talking about, I can express it in quantifiable terms.
Speaker 1: And he comes up with all of these great laws
Speaker 1: and and basically sets the stage the foundation for science
Speaker 1: for the next three centuries or so. Yeah, these these
Speaker 1: laws that were so rock solid and powerful that scientists
Speaker 1: kind of got ahead of themselves a little and said
Speaker 1: we're done. Like with Newton's laws, we can predict Uh,
Speaker 1: we can predict everything if we have a good enough
Speaker 1: beginning accurate value to plug into his equations, and they weren't.
Speaker 1: I think there was a little hubris and a little
Speaker 1: just excitement about like, well, we figured it all out right,
Speaker 1: that that you could take Newton's laws and if you
Speaker 1: had accurate enough measurements, you could predict what the outcome
Speaker 1: would be of that system that you plug those measurements
Speaker 1: into using these simular and at the time, a lot
Speaker 1: of this was like planetary like, well, we know that
Speaker 1: these planets are here and they're moving and their orbiting.
Speaker 1: So if we know these things, we can plug it
Speaker 1: into an equation and we can figure out what it's
Speaker 1: going to be like in a hundred years exactly. And
Speaker 1: they've figured out the basis of determinism is what we
Speaker 1: just said, that if you have accurate measurements, you can
Speaker 1: take those measurements and use them to predict, um how
Speaker 1: a system is going to change over time using differential equations. Right,
Speaker 1: so this is what this is what Newton comes along
Speaker 1: and figures out that you can describe the universe and
Speaker 1: these mathematical terms using differential equations and um. Like you
Speaker 1: said there was a tremendous amount of hubris, and well,
Speaker 1: I think you said there's some hubris. I think there's
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of hubris where science basically said, we've
Speaker 1: mastered the universe, We've uncovered the blueprint of the universe,
Speaker 1: and now we understand everything. It's just a matter now
Speaker 1: of getting our scientific measurements more and more and more exact.
Speaker 1: Because again, the hallmark of determinism is that if you
Speaker 1: have exact measurements, you can predict an outcome accurately, like
Speaker 1: the pool queue example. Well they're the pool table example, right, right,
Speaker 1: So if you've got a pool table, let's say you're
Speaker 1: playing some nine ball. You have that beautiful little diamond
Speaker 1: set up, you got your cue ball, you put that
Speaker 1: cue ball, and you you crack it with the queue.
Speaker 1: And if you are super accurate with your initial measurements,
Speaker 1: you should be able to mathematically plot out via angles
Speaker 1: where the balls will end up right exactly, Like you
Speaker 1: can say, this is what the table will look like
Speaker 1: after the break, if you know the force, the angle,
Speaker 1: all those little variable temperature, if there's wind in the room,
Speaker 1: like the felt on the table, like everything. The more
Speaker 1: specific you are, the more accurate your end result will be. Right.
Speaker 1: And then one of the other hallmarks of determinism is
Speaker 1: that if you take those exact same initial conditions and
Speaker 1: do them again, the table, the pool table will look
Speaker 1: exactly the same after the break. Yeah, which is pretty
Speaker 1: much impossible for like a human to do with their hands. Sure,
Speaker 1: but the idea at the time of science was that
Speaker 1: if you could build a perfect machine, sure that could
Speaker 1: recreate these conditions, it will happen the same way every time, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: And this, I mean, this led to they had hubris,
Speaker 1: but you could understand it when like literally in eighteen
Speaker 1: forty six, two people predicted Neptune would exist within months,
Speaker 1: that would exist, but does exist. And this is not
Speaker 1: by looking up in the sky like they did it
Speaker 1: with math and they were right. Yea. So imagine in
Speaker 1: eighteen forty when that happens, they're like, yeah, we kinda
Speaker 1: we've got the math down, so we're pretty much all
Speaker 1: knowing well. Plus also for the most part these not
Speaker 1: just with Neptune, they were finding, um that this stuff
Speaker 1: really panned out. It held true for everything from um,
Speaker 1: you know, the investigation into electricity to new chemical reactions
Speaker 1: and understanding those, and it laid the scientific revolution, laid
Speaker 1: the basis for the industrial revolution, and just the change
Speaker 1: inge that came out of the world like that. It
Speaker 1: definitely there. It is understandable how science kind of was
Speaker 1: like we got it all figured out well. And like
Speaker 1: you said, they even Galileo was smart enough to know
Speaker 1: there's uncertainty in these measurements, like the precision is key,
Speaker 1: so they spent what does the article say, A lot
Speaker 1: of the much of the nineteenth and twentieth century just
Speaker 1: trying to build better instrumentation to get more and more
Speaker 1: smaller and smaller and more precise measurements. Right, that was
Speaker 1: like basically the goal of it, right, Yeah, which was
Speaker 1: the right direction. That's like exactly what they should have
Speaker 1: been doing. The problem is there, Like you said, Galileo
Speaker 1: knew that there was some sort of there, There're gonna
Speaker 1: be some flaws and measurement that we just didn't have
Speaker 1: those great scientific instruments yet. Yeah. It's called the uncertainty principle. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's accuracy, right, But the idea is if you have
Speaker 1: a good enough instrument, you can overcome that, and that
Speaker 1: the the more you shrink the um error in measuring
Speaker 1: the initial conditions, the more you're going to shrink the
Speaker 1: error in the outcome. It would be proportionate. Right. They
Speaker 1: were correct. The thing is they were also aware but
Speaker 1: ignoring in a lot a lot of ways some outstanding problems,
Speaker 1: specifically something called the end body problem. You know what,
Speaker 1: I'm so excited about this. I need to take a break.
Speaker 1: I think that's a good idea. I need to go
Speaker 1: check out my end body in the bathroom, Okay, and
Speaker 1: we'll be back, all right. Took we're back. So there's
Speaker 1: some there's some issues right with determinism. There's some some
Speaker 1: weird problems out there that are saying like, hey, pay
Speaker 1: attention to me because I'm not sure determinism works right. Uh.
Speaker 1: And one one is the end body problem. Yeah. How
Speaker 1: this came about was five. That was King Oscar number
Speaker 1: two of Sweden and Norway. Yeah, I don't want to
Speaker 1: leave out Norway both. Uh. He said, you know what,
Speaker 1: let's offer a prize to anyone who can prove the
Speaker 1: stability of the Solar system, something that has been stable
Speaker 1: for a long time before that. And a lot of
Speaker 1: the most brilliant minds on planet Earth got together and
Speaker 1: tried to do this, uh, with mathematical proofs, and no
Speaker 1: one could do it. Uh. And then a dude name Honoree.
Speaker 1: You gotta help me there with that, Oh, say the
Speaker 1: whole thing. Red Plank, a very nice he was French,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, and he was a mathematician, and
Speaker 1: he said, you know what, I'm not gonna look at
Speaker 1: this big picture of all the planets in the Sun
Speaker 1: and all their orbits. You'd have to be a fool
Speaker 1: to try that. Sure, he said, I'm gonna shrink this down.
Speaker 1: Like we talked about shrinking that initial value, you know,
Speaker 1: and um, that initial condition, he shrunk it down. He said,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna look at just a couple of bodies orbiting
Speaker 1: one another, uh, with a common center of gravity, And
Speaker 1: I'm gonna look at this. And this was called the
Speaker 1: N body problem, Yeah, which was smart to do, because
Speaker 1: the more variables you factor into um a nonlinear equation
Speaker 1: like that, just the harder it's gonna be. So he
Speaker 1: shrunk it down. So the N body problem has to
Speaker 1: do with three or more celestial bodies orbiting one another.
Speaker 1: So Plank said, oh, I'll just start with three. Ye. Smart.
Speaker 1: And what he found from doing his equations for this
Speaker 1: this King Oscar the Sequel Prize um, was that shrinking
Speaker 1: the initial conditions measurement or rate of error right yeah,
Speaker 1: did not really shrink the the error in the outcome, right,
Speaker 1: which flies in the face of determinism. What he found
Speaker 1: was that just very very minute differences in the initial
Speaker 1: conditions fed into a system produced wildly different outcomes after
Speaker 1: a fairly short time. Yeah. Like, let me just round
Speaker 1: off the mass of this planet at like the eighth
Speaker 1: decimal point, and you know who cares, who cares? At
Speaker 1: that point? Let me just round that one to a two,
Speaker 1: and that would throw everything off at a at a
Speaker 1: pretty high rate. And he said, wait a minute, I
Speaker 1: think this contest is in possible, right, He said, there
Speaker 1: is no way to prude, prud to roof the stability
Speaker 1: of the Solar system, because he just uncovered the idea
Speaker 1: that it's impossible for us to predict the um, the
Speaker 1: the rate of change among celestial bodies. Yeah, it's such
Speaker 1: a complex system. There are far too many variables that, uh,
Speaker 1: it's impossible to start with something so minute to get
Speaker 1: the equation whatever, the sum that you want at the end. Well,
Speaker 1: not only that a sum I guess, but the result
Speaker 1: not only that, And this is what really undermined determinism
Speaker 1: was that he figured out that you would have to
Speaker 1: have an infinitely precise measurement. Yeah, which even if you
Speaker 1: build a perfect machine that could take the infinitely a
Speaker 1: perfect machine that could take a measurement of like the
Speaker 1: the movement of a celestial body around another, you, it's
Speaker 1: literally impossible to get infinite an infinitely precise measurement, which
Speaker 1: means that we could never predict out to a certain
Speaker 1: degree the movement of these celestial bodies. Like he was saying, like, no,
Speaker 1: you you can't get you can't build a machine there
Speaker 1: that gets measurements enough that we can overcome this, Like
Speaker 1: determinism is wrong, Like you can't just say, uh, we
Speaker 1: have the understanding to predict everything. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff out there that we're not able to predict. And
Speaker 1: he uncovered it trying to figure out this end body problem. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and King Oscar the sequel said you win, Yeah, bring
Speaker 1: me another rack of lamb and uh, here's your prize.
Speaker 1: And he won by proving that it was impossible, which
Speaker 1: is pretty interesting, and that utterly and completely changed not
Speaker 1: just math, but like our our our understanding of the
Speaker 1: universe and our understanding of our understanding of the universe,
Speaker 1: which is even more kind of earth shaking. Yeah, he
Speaker 1: discovered dynamical instability or chaos, and um, they didn't have
Speaker 1: supercomputers at the time, so it would be a little while,
Speaker 1: about seventy years at m I T until uh, we
Speaker 1: could actually kind of feed these things into machines capable
Speaker 1: of plotting these things out in a way that we
Speaker 1: could see, which was really incredible. So there was this
Speaker 1: dude um seventy years later, uh named um Edward Lawrence
Speaker 1: or Lawrence. Yeah. Well, first of all, we should set
Speaker 1: the stage the reason this guy he was a meteorologist
Speaker 1: and scientist, not that those are not the same thing, right,
Speaker 1: He's a scientist who dabbled the meteorology. He was a mathematician, Yeah,
Speaker 1: but he was really into meteorology because it was there
Speaker 1: was a weird juxtaposition at the time where we were
Speaker 1: sending people into outer space but we couldn't predict the weather. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it was it was definitely a blot on the
Speaker 1: field of meteorology. People were like, do you guys know
Speaker 1: what you're doing? And and meteor all just like you
Speaker 1: have no idea how hard this is? Yeah, Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we can predicted a couple of days out, but after that,
Speaker 1: it's just it's totally unpredictable. It drives as mad and
Speaker 1: it's not It wasn't just there, um, their reputations that
Speaker 1: were at stakes, like people were losing their lives because
Speaker 1: of it, right, Yeah. Nine six two there were two
Speaker 1: notorious storms, one on the East coast and one on
Speaker 1: the west. Uh, the ash Wednesday storm in the east
Speaker 1: and the Big Blow in the west. That killed a
Speaker 1: lot of people, cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damage,
Speaker 1: and people were like, you know, we need to be
Speaker 1: able to see these things coming a little more because
Speaker 1: it's a problem. And meteorologists were like, why did you
Speaker 1: do it then? So they thought the key was these
Speaker 1: big supercomputers. Remember the supercomputers. When they came out the
Speaker 1: big rooms full of hardware, it was amazing and they
Speaker 1: were finally able to do like these incredible calculations that
Speaker 1: we could never do before. I know, they were able
Speaker 1: to like crunch sixty four bites a second. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: had the abacus and then the supercomputer, nothing in between. Um.
Speaker 1: I looked up the computer that Lawrence was working with,
Speaker 1: the Whopper a Royal McBee. What was the whopper board games?
Speaker 1: Was it called the whopper? W a pr? I can't
Speaker 1: believe they called it that. So the guy just nicknamed
Speaker 1: it Joshua. No, Joshua was the the software Falcon was
Speaker 1: the old man who designed all this stuff, and his
Speaker 1: son was Joshua. And that was the password? Oh, that
Speaker 1: was the password. Yeah, I guess I was too young
Speaker 1: to understand what a password was. Yeah, okay, you didn't
Speaker 1: even there weren't passwords at the time. Shouted it at
Speaker 1: the computer and they're like, okay, access granted. Yeah, still
Speaker 1: that movie holds up, does it really totally got to
Speaker 1: check it out? Yeah, still, very very fun. Young Ali
Speaker 1: Sheety boy had a crush on her from that movie.
Speaker 1: She was great. Yeah, what else was she in recently?
Speaker 1: Wasn't she in something? Well? I mean she kind of
Speaker 1: went away for a while and then had her big
Speaker 1: comeback with the indie movie High Art, But that was
Speaker 1: a while ago. Has she been in anything else recently? Sure?
Speaker 1: I think I saw something and something recently and I
Speaker 1: didn't realize that was her. She looks familiar. I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's Ali Sheity. I don't know all right. I could
Speaker 1: look it up, but I won't as it doesn't matter anyway.
Speaker 1: I still crushed on her. So the the Royal McBee
Speaker 1: was not quite the whopper. You could actually sit down
Speaker 1: at it. The Royal McBee, that's the name of that
Speaker 1: sounds like a Hamburger too. It was by the Royal
Speaker 1: Typewriter Company and they got into computers for a second.
Speaker 1: And this is the kind of computer that Lawrence was
Speaker 1: working with, and it was a huge deal, like you
Speaker 1: were saying Abacus supercomputer. UM. But it was still pretty
Speaker 1: dumb as far as what we have today is concerned.
Speaker 1: But it was enough that Lawrence is like Lawrence and
Speaker 1: his ILK, where like, finally we can start running models
Speaker 1: and actually pretty the weather. Yeah, he started doing just that.
Speaker 1: He did. So he started off with, UM, a computational
Speaker 1: model of twelve meteorological meteorological calculations, which is very basic
Speaker 1: because they're infinite meteorological calculations, probably depending I stay it
Speaker 1: wrong again, Like it sounds like you're about to say
Speaker 1: it wrong and then you pull it out at the
Speaker 1: last second. Maybe it's really impressive. But h So that's
Speaker 1: very basic. But he wanted to start out, you know,
Speaker 1: with something attainable, so he narrowed it down to twelve conditions,
Speaker 1: basically twelve calculations that had you know, temperature, wind, speed, pressure,
Speaker 1: stuff like that started forecasting weather. Uh. And then he said,
Speaker 1: you know, it'd be great if you could see this,
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna spit it into my wonder machine, the
Speaker 1: McWhopper Royal MCBE and I'm going to get a print
Speaker 1: out so you can visualize what this looks like. So
Speaker 1: things were going well, and he had this print out,
Speaker 1: and everyone was amazed because these these calculations never seemed
Speaker 1: to repeat themselves. He was making like um, like like
Speaker 1: word art. You remember that. That was the first thing
Speaker 1: anybody did on a computer. It was to make word
Speaker 1: art like a butterfly or right, you would print out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I never could do that. I couldn't either, Like you
Speaker 1: have to be able to visualize things spatially that you
Speaker 1: have to have that right kind of brain for that, right,
Speaker 1: or you have to be following a guide book. But
Speaker 1: you have you ever seen me? You and everyone we know? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I love that movie. That's a great movie. Those little
Speaker 1: kids in there, they were doing that Oh yeah, yeah, forever,
Speaker 1: back and forth poop. Well I haven't I haven't seen
Speaker 1: that since it came out. It's been a while. Oh
Speaker 1: you gotta see it again. Yeah, great movie. Ali's not
Speaker 1: in it. It's a Miranda July right, and she wrote
Speaker 1: and directed to right. She did a great job. It's
Speaker 1: like it's one of those rare movies where like there's
Speaker 1: just the right amount of whimsy. Is whimsy so easily
Speaker 1: overpowers everything else and becomes like yeah, yeah, this is
Speaker 1: like the most perfectly balanced amount of like whimsy you've
Speaker 1: ever seen in a movie. Yeah, there's too much whimsy.
Speaker 1: I just like terrible Garden State. I just want to
Speaker 1: punch in the face Terrible. Although I like Garden State,
Speaker 1: but I haven't seen it since it came out. It
Speaker 1: hasn't aged. Well, it's just when you look at it now,
Speaker 1: it's just so cutesye and whimsical. It's like, come on, yeah, boy,
Speaker 1: we're getting to a lot of movies today. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: Well we're stalling and we haven't even talked about butterfly
Speaker 1: effect yet, which is coming and I'm dreading it. That's
Speaker 1: why I'm stalling, all right. So where were we? He
Speaker 1: was running his calculations, printing out his values so people
Speaker 1: could see it, and then he got a little lazy
Speaker 1: one day. In this output he noticed was interesting, so
Speaker 1: he said, you know, I'm gonna repeat this calculation see
Speaker 1: it again, but I'm gonna to save time, just gonna
Speaker 1: kind of pick up in the middle, and I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna input as many numbers, but I'm still using the
Speaker 1: same values, just I'm not going out to six decimal points.
Speaker 1: So the print out he had went to three decimal points,
Speaker 1: so he was working from the print out and didn't
Speaker 1: take into account that the computer accepted six decimal points,
Speaker 1: so he was just putting in three and expecting that
Speaker 1: the outcome would be the same. Right, Yes, but the
Speaker 1: outcome was way different, right, And he went whoa, whoa what? Yeah,
Speaker 1: He's like, what's going on here? There was a big deal.
Speaker 1: I mean someone would have come up with this eventually
Speaker 1: probably yeah, but sort of accidentally came upon it. It's
Speaker 1: neat that this guy did this because it changed his career.
Speaker 1: I think he went from emphasis on meteorology to an
Speaker 1: emphasis on chaos math to stud scientists basically. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: the guy's got an attractor named after him, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. Yeah, well let's get to that. So
Speaker 1: Lorenz starts looking at this and he's like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: this is this is weird. This is worth investigating, and
Speaker 1: like uh like uh, what was his name? Pwankara? He said,
Speaker 1: I need fewer variables, so I'm not going to try
Speaker 1: to predict weather with these twelve differential equations that you
Speaker 1: have to take into account. I'm just gonna take one
Speaker 1: aspect of weather called the rolling convection current, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to see how I can write it down in
Speaker 1: formula form. So rolling convection current, chuck is where you know,
Speaker 1: how the wind is created where air at the surface
Speaker 1: is heated and then starts to rise and suddenly cool
Speaker 1: air from higher above comes in to fill that that
Speaker 1: vacuum that's left, and that creates a rolling um or
Speaker 1: vertically based convection current. Okay you could, I would describe
Speaker 1: it as oven oven, boiling water, a cup of coffee.
Speaker 1: Wherever there's a temperature differential based on a vertical alignment,
Speaker 1: you're going to have a role in convection current. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: it sounds complex, but he just picked out one thing,
Speaker 1: basically one condition and this is the one he picked out.
Speaker 1: But had you seen my hands moving listeners, you would
Speaker 1: be like, oh yeah, I know he made little rolling emotions.
Speaker 1: So um, he's like, okay, I can figure this out.
Speaker 1: So he comes up with three three formula that kind
Speaker 1: of describe a rolling convection current, and he starts trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how to describe this rolling convection current
Speaker 1: right correct, And so, like I said, he got this
Speaker 1: these three formula, which we're basically three variables that he
Speaker 1: calculated over time, and he plugged him in and he
Speaker 1: found three variables that changed over time, and he found
Speaker 1: that after a certain point, when you graph these things out,
Speaker 1: and since there are three, you graph them out on
Speaker 1: a three dimensional graph, so x, y and z. Again,
Speaker 1: he wanted to just be able to visualize this because
Speaker 1: it's easier for people to understand. He was a very
Speaker 1: visual guy. All of a sudden, it made this crazy
Speaker 1: graph that where the line as it progressed forward through time,
Speaker 1: went all over the place. It went from this access
Speaker 1: to another access to the other axis, and it would
Speaker 1: spend some time over here, and then it would suddenly
Speaker 1: loop over to the other one, and it followed no
Speaker 1: rhyme or reason. It never retraced its path. And it
Speaker 1: was describing how a convection current changes over time. Right,
Speaker 1: and Lorenz is looking at this. He was expecting these
Speaker 1: three things to equalize and eventually form a line, because
Speaker 1: that's what determinism says, things are going to fall into
Speaker 1: a certain amount of equilibrium and just even out over time.
Speaker 1: That is not what he found. And what he discovered
Speaker 1: was what poncar A discovered, which was that some systems,
Speaker 1: even relatively simple systems, exhibit very complex, unpredictable behavior, which
Speaker 1: you could call offs. Yeah. And when you say things
Speaker 1: were going all over like if you look at the graph,
Speaker 1: it it's not just lines going in straight lines bouncing
Speaker 1: all over the place randomly, like there was an order
Speaker 1: to it, but the lines were not on top of
Speaker 1: one another. Like let's say you draw a figure eight
Speaker 1: with your pencil and then you continue drawing that figure eight,
Speaker 1: It's gonna slip outside those curves every time unless you're
Speaker 1: a robot um. And that's what it ended up looking like. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it never retraced the same path twice ever. Um. It
Speaker 1: had a lot of really surprising properties and at the time,
Speaker 1: it just fell completely outside the understanding of science, right yeah.
Speaker 1: Luckily this happened to Lawrence who was curious enough to
Speaker 1: be like, what is going on here? And again he
Speaker 1: sat down and started to do the math and thinking
Speaker 1: about this and especially how it applied to the weather,
Speaker 1: right yeah, and he came up with something very famous. Yes,
Speaker 1: the butterfly effect. Yes, uh a, this thing kind of
Speaker 1: looked like butterfly wings a little bit. Uh and b
Speaker 1: When he went to present his findings, he he basically
Speaker 1: had the notion He's like, I'm gonna I'm gonna wile
Speaker 1: these people in the crowd. In nine two, it's a
Speaker 1: conference that I'm going to and I'm gonna I'm gonna
Speaker 1: say something like, you know, the seagull flaps his wings
Speaker 1: and it starts a small turbulence that can one that
Speaker 1: can affect whether on the other side of the world.
Speaker 1: The small little thing will just grow and grow in
Speaker 1: snowball and effective things. And he had a colleague goes, like,
Speaker 1: seagull wings, that's nice, and he said, how about this?
Speaker 1: And this is the title they ended up with, predictability
Speaker 1: Colin does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil
Speaker 1: set off a tornado and Texas And everyone was like,
Speaker 1: whoa mind's blown? Should we take a break? All right,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back, all right. So the lawns attractor,
Speaker 1: uh is that picture that he ended up with, The
Speaker 1: lawns attractor? And this biblical pattern website that I found
Speaker 1: described attractors and strange attractors in a way that even
Speaker 1: dumb old me could understand what you got. So if
Speaker 1: I may, he says, all right, here's the cycle of chaos.
Speaker 1: He said, Actually, I don't know who wrote this. Woman
Speaker 1: could have been a small child could have been no
Speaker 1: of undetermined gender. I have no idea but the gender
Speaker 1: neutral narrator. They said, He's sorry. Think about a town
Speaker 1: that has like in thousand people living in it. To
Speaker 1: make that town work, you've got to have like a
Speaker 1: gas station, a grocery store, a library, um, whatever you
Speaker 1: need to sustain that town. So all these things are built,
Speaker 1: everyone's happy. You have equilibrium. He said, So that's great.
Speaker 1: Then let's say you build some Someone comes and builds
Speaker 1: a factory on the outskirts of that town, and there's
Speaker 1: gonna be ten thousand more people living there, and they
Speaker 1: don't go to church. Maybe so, uh did I say church?
Speaker 1: They needed a church? Okay? I was just assuming this
Speaker 1: is what's caum no, no, no, but you just have
Speaker 1: more people. So there's you need another gas station and
Speaker 1: another grocery store. Let's say so they build all these things,
Speaker 1: and then you reach equilibrium. Again, it's maintained because you
Speaker 1: build all these other systems up. That equilibrium is called
Speaker 1: an attractor. Okay, So then he said it said, they
Speaker 1: said he capital he the royal. He said, all right,
Speaker 1: now let's say instead of that that factory being built,
Speaker 1: and you have those original tin thous and let's say
Speaker 1: three thousand. Those people just up and leave one day,
Speaker 1: and the grocery store guy says, well, there's only seven
Speaker 1: thousand people here. We need eight thousand people living here
Speaker 1: to make a profit. So I'm shutting down this grocery store.
Speaker 1: Then all of a sudden, you have demand for groceries.
Speaker 1: So things go on for a little while, and someone
Speaker 1: comes in and say, hey, this town needs a grocery store.
Speaker 1: They build a grocery store, they can't sustain, they shut down.
Speaker 1: Someone else comes along because the demand, and it is
Speaker 1: this search for equilibrium, this dinet. Well, you reach equallylibrium
Speaker 1: here and there as the store opens periods of stability,
Speaker 1: periods of stability, and that dynamic equilibrium is called a
Speaker 1: strange attractor. So an attractor is the state which a
Speaker 1: system settles on. Stranger attractor is the trajector on which
Speaker 1: it never settles down but tries to reach the equilibrium
Speaker 1: with periods of stability. Man, does that make sense that
Speaker 1: Bible based explanation was dynamite? I understand it better than
Speaker 1: I did before, and I understood it okay before. That's great,
Speaker 1: surely can add yeah, yeah, now you're gonna add to it. No,
Speaker 1: that's it. No, I mean like it. Yeah. And attractor
Speaker 1: is where if you graph something and eventually it reaches equilibrium,
Speaker 1: it's a regular attractor. If it never reaches equilibrium, is
Speaker 1: constantly trying to and has periods of stability. Strange attractor.
Speaker 1: I can't. I can't top that. All right, grocery store,
Speaker 1: small town. That was great. So um Lorenz, a strange
Speaker 1: attractor was named a Lorenz attractor named after him. Big deal.
Speaker 1: They weren't using the word chaos yet. No, but he
Speaker 1: published that paper about butterfly wings, right, the butterfly effect,
Speaker 1: and it coupled with his pictures, the picture of a
Speaker 1: strange attractor, which is almost the aside from fractals, almost
Speaker 1: the the the um emblem or the logo for chaos theory,
Speaker 1: the lords attractor is um. It got attention off the bat.
Speaker 1: It wasn't like plan Cares findings, where he got neglected
Speaker 1: for seventy years. Almost immediately everybody was talking about this
Speaker 1: because again, what Lawrence had uncovered, which is the same
Speaker 1: thing that Planka had uncovered, is that determinism is possibly
Speaker 1: based on an illusion that the universe isn't stable, that
Speaker 1: the universe isn't predictable, and that what we are seeing
Speaker 1: as stable and predictable are these little periods windows of
Speaker 1: stability that are found in strange attractor graphs. That that's
Speaker 1: what we think the order of the universe is, but
Speaker 1: that that is actually the abnormal aspect of the universe,
Speaker 1: and that instability, unpredictability, as far as we're concerned, is
Speaker 1: the actual state of affairs in in nature. And I
Speaker 1: think as as we're concerned is a really important point
Speaker 1: to chuck, because it doesn't mean that nature is unstable chaotic.
Speaker 1: It means that our picture of what we understand is
Speaker 1: order doesn't jibe with how the universe actually functions. It's
Speaker 1: just our understanding of it, and we're's just so um
Speaker 1: anthropocentric that, you know, we we see it as chaos
Speaker 1: and disorder and something to be feared, when really it's
Speaker 1: just complexity that we don't have the capability of predicting.
Speaker 1: After a certain degree. Yeah, I think that makes me
Speaker 1: feel a little better, because when you read stuff like this,
Speaker 1: you start to feel like, well, the Earth could just
Speaker 1: throw us all off of its face at any moment,
Speaker 1: because it starts spinning so fast that gravity becomes undone,
Speaker 1: and I know that's not right. By the way, I've
Speaker 1: always loved that kind of science that shows we don't
Speaker 1: know anything, like Ert Robert Hume, who I know, I
Speaker 1: understand was a philosopher, but he was a philosopher scientist. Um.
Speaker 1: His whole jam was like causing effect as an illusion
Speaker 1: that like we all we it's it's just an assumption,
Speaker 1: like that if you drop a pencil, it will always
Speaker 1: fall down. It's an illusion. And this is pre um
Speaker 1: gravity understanding gravity, but he makes a good pret gravity
Speaker 1: when everyone's just floating around. Yeah, going this pencils got
Speaker 1: me wacky. But but the point was that you know,
Speaker 1: we we are. We base a lot of our assumptions
Speaker 1: um or a lot of stuff that we take as
Speaker 1: law are actually based on assumptions that are made from
Speaker 1: observations over time, and that we're just making predictions that
Speaker 1: causing effect as an illusion. I love that guy, and
Speaker 1: this this definitely supports that idea for sure. Yeah. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm excited about chaos theory. Can't believe it? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean I like that I'm able to understand it
Speaker 1: and enough of a rudimentary way that I can talk
Speaker 1: about it at a dinner party. Well, thank your Bible website. Well,
Speaker 1: once you take the formulas out, yeah, for people like us,
Speaker 1: we're like, okay, we can understand chaos. Yeah. Then when
Speaker 1: somebody says, good, do a differential equation, you're just like,
Speaker 1: what a different equation? Alright? So earlier I said that
Speaker 1: chaos had not been used the word chaos to describe
Speaker 1: all this junk. Uh, And that didn't happen until later on,
Speaker 1: and well actually about ten years, you know, but it
Speaker 1: was kind of at the same time this other stuff
Speaker 1: was going on with the Lorenz late sixties early seventies.
Speaker 1: There was a guy named Stevens Smile uh Fields metal recipient,
Speaker 1: so you know, he's good at math and um he
Speaker 1: describes something that we now know as the small horseshoe,
Speaker 1: and it goes a little something like this. Uh so,
Speaker 1: all right, take a piece of dough, like like bread dough,
Speaker 1: and you smash it out into a big flat rectangle
Speaker 1: can do. So you're looking at that thing and you're like, boy,
Speaker 1: I hope this makes some good bread. This is gonna
Speaker 1: be so good. So then you do a little roseberry
Speaker 1: on it. Yeah maybe so uh well, see salt. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and then um, lick it before you bake it, so
Speaker 1: you know it's yours. No one else can happen. Uh.
Speaker 1: So you you have that flat rectangle of dough, you
Speaker 1: roll it up into a tube, and then you smash
Speaker 1: that down kind of flat, and then you bend that
Speaker 1: down to where it eventually looks like a horse shoe.
Speaker 1: So now you take that horseshoe. You take another rectangle
Speaker 1: of dough, and you throw that horseshoe onto that, and
Speaker 1: then you do the same thing. The smell horseshoe basically
Speaker 1: says you cannot predict where the two points of that
Speaker 1: horse shoe will end up. Yeah, you can roll it
Speaker 1: a million times and they'll end up in a million
Speaker 1: different places, totally random, different places to totally random. You
Speaker 1: never know. It's like a box of chocolates. You never
Speaker 1: know what you're gonna get. You have to say it,
Speaker 1: and that became known. You have to say it. Oh
Speaker 1: what a tate Forrest Coump And I can't do that.
Speaker 1: That's fine, he's not one. He's not in my repertoire.
Speaker 1: That's fine. Although I did see that again part of
Speaker 1: it recently. Does it hold up well? I mean, take
Speaker 1: out forty minutes of it and it would have been
Speaker 1: a better movie, like all of that coincidence stuff that
Speaker 1: Oh I love that and also did the smile t
Speaker 1: shirt Like it was just too much, Like he really
Speaker 1: hammered it too much. That was the basis of the movie.
Speaker 1: I know. But see it again and I guarantee you,
Speaker 1: like an hour and a half into it, you'll be like,
Speaker 1: I get it. You know. It was a good Tom
Speaker 1: Hanks movie that was overlooked. A Road to Perdition, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that bad. That was a good one. Great sam In
Speaker 1: does Oh man, that guy is awesome. Yeah, Oh, what
Speaker 1: is he gonna do? He might do something he did
Speaker 1: the James Bot he did Skyfall. Yeah, yeah, I know
Speaker 1: he's gonna also that last one that wasn't so great.
Speaker 1: He's got a potential project coming up and he would
Speaker 1: be amazing for it. And I don't remember what it was.
Speaker 1: Did you see Revolutionary Road? Yes? God have it was
Speaker 1: just like, yeah, you want to jump off a bridge?
Speaker 1: That like every five minutes during that movie. That was hardcore.
Speaker 1: Uh he did that one too, huh. Yeah, And don't
Speaker 1: see that if you're like engaged to be married or
Speaker 1: thinking about it, yeah, or if you're blue already. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm yeah to take a really good good mood and
Speaker 1: be like I'm sick of being in a good mood,
Speaker 1: sit down and watch Revolutionary Road, watch Joe versus the
Speaker 1: Volcano instead? Uh? Where was I smell? Horseshoe? Is what
Speaker 1: that's called? And um? That was he was the first
Speaker 1: person to actually use the word chaos. Oh he was?
Speaker 1: I think so? No? No, No York was Tom York's dad. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're right, he wasn't the first person New York correct,
Speaker 1: But it's male's horseshoe illustrates a really good point, Chuck,
Speaker 1: is it Tom York's dad? Okay, no, but they're both British, Sure,
Speaker 1: Yorky's actually one's Australian. No, they're British. Um. So, uh
Speaker 1: those two points which should which started out right by
Speaker 1: each other, and then end up in two totally different places.
Speaker 1: That applies not just a bread dough, but also too
Speaker 1: things like water molecules that are right next to each
Speaker 1: other at some point and then uh month later, they're
Speaker 1: in two different oceans. Even though you would assume that
Speaker 1: they would go through all the same motions and everything,
Speaker 1: but they're not. There's so many different variables with things
Speaker 1: like ocean currents, that two water molecules that were one
Speaker 1: side by side end up in totally random different places.
Speaker 1: And that's part of chaos. It's basically chaos personified or
Speaker 1: chaos molecule fied. So we mentioned York. Where I was
Speaker 1: going with that was, Um, there was an Australian named
Speaker 1: Robert May and he was a population biologist. So he
Speaker 1: was using math to model how animal populations would change
Speaker 1: over time, giving certain starting conditions. Uh. So he started
Speaker 1: using uh these equations is differential equations, and he came
Speaker 1: up with a formula known as the logistic difference equation
Speaker 1: that basically enabled him to predict these animal populations pretty well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it was working pretty well for a while, but
Speaker 1: he noticed something really really weird, right. He had this formula, Um,
Speaker 1: the logistic difference equation is the name of it. Sure, Okay,
Speaker 1: So we had that formula and he figured out that
Speaker 1: if you took our which in this case was the
Speaker 1: reproductive rate of a animal population, and you pushed it
Speaker 1: past three, the number three, So that meant that the
Speaker 1: average animal in this population of animals had three offspring
Speaker 1: in its lifetime or in a season whatever. If you
Speaker 1: pushed the past three, all of a sudden, the number
Speaker 1: of the population would diverge. If you pushed it equal
Speaker 1: to three actually, or more right, it would diverge, which
Speaker 1: is weird because a population of animals can't be two
Speaker 1: different numbers, you know, like that herd of antelope is
Speaker 1: not there's not thirty, but there's also forty five of
Speaker 1: them at the same time. That's called a super position,
Speaker 1: and that has to do with quantum states, not herds
Speaker 1: of antelopes. That was kind of weird. And then he
Speaker 1: found if you pushed it a little further, if you
Speaker 1: made the reproductive rate like three point oh five seven
Speaker 1: or something like that. I think it was a different number,
Speaker 1: but you just tweaked it a little bit, not even
Speaker 1: to four. We're talking like millions of a of a
Speaker 1: um of a degree um. All of a sudden it
Speaker 1: would turn into four, so there'll be four different numbers
Speaker 1: for that was the animal population, and then would turn
Speaker 1: into sixteen. And then all of a sudden, after a
Speaker 1: certain point, it would turn into chaos. The number would
Speaker 1: be everything at once, all over the place, just totally
Speaker 1: random numbers that it oscillated between. But in all that chaos.
Speaker 1: There would be periods of stability. Right, you push it
Speaker 1: a little further and all of a sudden it would
Speaker 1: just go to two again. But beyond that, it didn't
Speaker 1: go back to the original two numbers and went to
Speaker 1: another two. So if you looked at it on a graph,
Speaker 1: it went line divided into two, divided into four eight
Speaker 1: sixteen chaos, two four sixteen sixteen chaos, all before you
Speaker 1: even got to the number four of the reproductive right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And he was working with Mr York because he was
Speaker 1: a little confounded. So he was a mathematician buddy of his,
Speaker 1: James York from the University of Maryland, So they worked
Speaker 1: together on this. In the nineteen seventy five they co
Speaker 1: authored a paper called Period three Implies Chaos And man,
Speaker 1: finally somebody said the word. I kept thinking it was
Speaker 1: all these other people. Yeah, and the this this paper
Speaker 1: where they first debut the name chaos. Um. They they
Speaker 1: based it um. Tom York's stay based it on Edward
Speaker 1: Lawrence's paper. He was like, you know what, I have
Speaker 1: a feeling this has something to do with the Lawrence attractor.
Speaker 1: So that um, that that provided chaos to the world,
Speaker 1: and it it was the basically the third the third
Speaker 1: time a scientist had said, we don't understand the universe
Speaker 1: like we think we do, and determinism is based on
Speaker 1: an illusion of order in a really chaotic universe. And this, uh,
Speaker 1: this established chaos. It took off like a rocket. And
Speaker 1: the eighties and the nineties, you know, as you know
Speaker 1: from Jurassic Park, chaos was everything. Everybody's like chaos, this
Speaker 1: is totally awesome. It's the new frontier of science. And
Speaker 1: then it just went It just went away, And a
Speaker 1: lot of people said, well, it was a little overhyped,
Speaker 1: but I think more than anything, and I think this
Speaker 1: is kind of the current understanding of chaos because it
Speaker 1: didn't actually go away. It became a deeper and deeper field.
Speaker 1: As you'll see, Um, people miss took what chaos meant.
Speaker 1: It wasn't the a new the new type of science.
Speaker 1: It was a new understanding of the universe. It was
Speaker 1: saying like, yes, you can still use Newtonian physics, like
Speaker 1: don't throw everything out the window. You can still try
Speaker 1: and predict weather and still try and build more accurate
Speaker 1: instruments and get you know, decent results, but you can't
Speaker 1: with absolute perfection. Complex systems like determinism. The the ultimate
Speaker 1: goal of determinism is false. It can never be it
Speaker 1: can never be done because we can't have an infinitely
Speaker 1: precise measurement for every variable or any variable. Therefore, we
Speaker 1: can't predict these outcomes. Right, So you would expect science
Speaker 1: to be like, what's the point, what's the point of anything? No,
Speaker 1: not science. Well, some some chaos people have said, no,
Speaker 1: this is this is great, this is good. We'll take this.
Speaker 1: Will take the universe as it is, rather than trying
Speaker 1: to force it into our pretty little equations and saying,
Speaker 1: if the ocean temperature is this at this time of year, uh,
Speaker 1: and the fish population is this at that time, then
Speaker 1: this is how many offspring this fish style, this fish
Speaker 1: population is going to have. Um, say, okay, here is
Speaker 1: the fish population, Here is the ocean temperature, here all
Speaker 1: these other variables. Let's feed it into a model and
Speaker 1: see what happens. Not this is going to happen. What
Speaker 1: happens instead, And this is kind of the understanding of
Speaker 1: chaos theory. Now, it's taking raw data, as much data
Speaker 1: as you can possibly get your hands on, as precise
Speaker 1: data as you could possibly get your hands on, and
Speaker 1: just feeding it into a model and seeing what patterns emerge.
Speaker 1: Rather than making assumptions, it's saying, what's the outcome, what
Speaker 1: comes out of this model? Yeah, and that's why like
Speaker 1: when you see some things like you know, fifty years
Speaker 1: ago they predicted this animal be its extinct and it's not. Well,
Speaker 1: it's because the variations were too complex they tried to predict. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that's why if you look at a ten day forecast, you, sir,
Speaker 1: are a fool. All right, It's true, Well, ten days
Speaker 1: from now says it's going to rain in the afternoon.
Speaker 1: Come on. But if you take if you took enough
Speaker 1: variables for weather for like a city, and fed it
Speaker 1: into a model of the weather for that city, you
Speaker 1: could find, uh, you could find a time when it
Speaker 1: was similar to what it is now, and you could
Speaker 1: conceivably make some assumptions based on that. You can say, well,
Speaker 1: actually we can we can predict a little further out
Speaker 1: than we think. But um, it's it's based on this
Speaker 1: this theory, this understanding of chaos, of unpredictability, of not
Speaker 1: just not forcing nature into our formulas, but putting data
Speaker 1: into a model and seeing what comes out of it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And then at the end of that, you learn like
Speaker 1: when that animal is not extinct like you thought it
Speaker 1: would be, you go back and look at the general
Speaker 1: thing and you have a more accurate picture of how
Speaker 1: the you know, data could have been off slightly this
Speaker 1: one value, and then you have more buffalo than you think. Yeah,
Speaker 1: sure you got buffaloed by chaos. And we're not even
Speaker 1: getting into fractals. It's a whole other thing. And we
Speaker 1: did a whole other podcast in June about fractals and
Speaker 1: Mandel bin Wa mandel Brett, mandel Brett, mandel Brett, and
Speaker 1: go listen to that one and hear me clinging to
Speaker 1: the edge of a clift Clift man. We we should
Speaker 1: end this, but first, um, I want to say, there
Speaker 1: is a really interesting article it's pretty understandable on Quanta
Speaker 1: magazine about a guy named George Sara and he is
Speaker 1: a chaos theory dude who's got a whole lab and
Speaker 1: is applying it to real life. So it's a really
Speaker 1: good picture of chaos the re inaction. Go check it out. Okay, uh,
Speaker 1: if you want to know more about chaos theory, I
Speaker 1: hope your brain is not broken. Yeah, go take some
Speaker 1: LSD and look at don't do that. Um, you can
Speaker 1: type those words into how stuff works in the search bar,
Speaker 1: any of those fractals LST chaos. It'll bring up some
Speaker 1: good stuff. And since I said good stuff, it's time
Speaker 1: for a listener. Now, I'm gonna call this rare shout out.
Speaker 1: You get requests all the time. I bet I know
Speaker 1: which one is. Really yeah, duding his girlfriend. Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: so far, so good. Hey, guys, just want to say
Speaker 1: I think you're doing a wonderful job with the show
Speaker 1: to the state. My first time listening was during my
Speaker 1: first deployment. Uh yeah, when I listened to your list
Speaker 1: on famous and influential films, and I was hooked after that.
Speaker 1: Since I came back state side, I spent many hours
Speaker 1: driving to and fro uh see my girlfriend to my barracks,
Speaker 1: and I can happily say that they've been made all
Speaker 1: the more enjoyable by listening to you guys. Even my
Speaker 1: girlfriend Rachel has warmed up to you dudes, which was
Speaker 1: not a pleasant I'm sorry, which was a pleasant shock
Speaker 1: to me, as she has told me repeatedly that she
Speaker 1: cannot listen to audiobooks because quote, hearing people talk on
Speaker 1: the radio gives me a headache. End quote. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: hope you guys continue to make awesome podcasts as I'm
Speaker 1: headed out on my next deployment. And if you could
Speaker 1: give a shout out to Rachel, I'm sure it would
Speaker 1: make her feel a little better that I got the
Speaker 1: pleasant people on the podcast to reaffirm how much I
Speaker 1: love her. That is John, Rachel hanging there. John, be
Speaker 1: safe and uh, thanks for listening. Yeah, man, thank you.
Speaker 1: That's a greed email. I love that one. Glad we
Speaker 1: don't give you a headache. Rachel. Yeah, for she listened
Speaker 1: to this son and she's like, Okay, oh yeah, everybody's
Speaker 1: gonna get a headache from this one. Like I I
Speaker 1: came to hate the sound of my own voice from
Speaker 1: this one. How You'll be all right. If you want
Speaker 1: to get in touch with us, you can hang out
Speaker 1: with us on Twitter at s y SKA podcast Saying
Speaker 1: goes for Instagram. You can hang out with us on Facebook,
Speaker 1: dot com slash Stuff you Should Know. You can send
Speaker 1: us an email to Stuff podcast at how Stuff Works
Speaker 1: dot com and has always joined us at home on
Speaker 1: the web. Stuff you Should Know dot Com. Stuff you
Speaker 1: Should Know is a production of iHeart Radio's How Stuff
Speaker 1: Works for more podcasts for my heart Radio because at
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows,