12-17-2019, 10:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-18-2019, 08:54 AM by John J. Xenakis.)
** 17-Dec-2019 World View: Trend Events vs Chaotic Events
You're both right that I haven't been rigorous in using the Chaos
Theory terminology. In fact, I've tried several times in the past to
give a rigorous definition of the relationship between Generational
Dynamics and Chaos Theory, and although I have an intuitive
understanding of the relationship, I've failed to explain it
rigorously. So here's where I'll try again.
For years, I've been using the phrase "chaotic event," and it's worked
very well for me, even if it's not an official term of Chaos Theory.
When I use the term, it means something that Generational Dynamics
can't predict. When something can be predicted, it's called a "trend
event," meaning that it must happen at some time. ("If something
(some trend) can't go on forever, then it won't.") So we have trend
events and chaotic events.
To put it another way, in the last 15 years I've made thousands of
Generational Dynamics predictions about hundreds of countries and
regions throughout history. Those predictions have all come true or
are trending true. None has been wrong. That's because I've avoided
predicting things that can't be predicted, and that's what Chaos
Theory tells me. There are some things that Chaos Theory tells me
cannot be predicted by Generational Dynamics, and those are "chaotic
events" or "chaotic timings."
So how does Chaos Theory "tell me" that some major event cannot be
predicted? The answer is to do an informal mental test of whether a
"small event" or a "random event" can affect whether or not the event
will occur.
For example, I always describe election results as chaotic, and can't
be predicted. There are a couple of informal mental tests that prove
this. For example, a butterfly could flap its wings in China and
cause a rainstorm in North America that affects election turnout, and
therefore the outcome. Another example is that some girl could come
forward at the last minute and make some sexual accusation of one of
the candidates, and that could affect the election outcome. In fact,
any random last-minute scandal of any kind could affect the election
results.
Another common mental test is whether the event is controlled by one
person or a small group of people. The Israeli-Hezbollah war could be
an example of this. The war was triggered by actions of a small group
of people - the abduction, the decision to declare war.
It's really a remarkable example. On July 11, 2006, there was no
thought of war. On July 13, 2006, they were at war. So what happened
on July 12, 2006? Could the same thing have happened a few days
earlier? That's far from certain. Maybe on July 12 some Israeli
politician was sick at home, and if he'd been in his office, then he
would have stopped the war, so there wouldn't have been a war on some
other day.
On the other hand, we can safely predict that there will be a new
Mideast war between Jews and Arabs, although we can't predict the
exact time or the exact scenario. This prediction is driven powerful
generational forces, and can't be derailed by a person being sick at
home or a change in the weather.
However, then there's a related concept called "the trigger." A new
Mideast war may be 100% certain, and when it occurs we may be able to
identify a trigger, and the trigger may be a random event that itself
cannot be predicted. So the war is a trend event, but the trigger
would be a chaotic event.
The 1929 panic was a trend event -- it had to happen. But there's
never been an identifiable trigger, so the panic itself is a chaotic
event. Or perhaps I would say that the timing of the event is
chaotic.
In fact, a "panic" is, almost by definition, a chaotic event.
One more thing: I disagree that a war can be predictably sped up or
slowed down if the war is triggered by a panic. In fact, if you take
some action with the intention of slowing down the rush to war, then
it may backfire by causing a panic to occur earlier than otherwise.
Of course, politicians and historians later may say that such an
action slowed down the war, but that's only because the events already
happened. If it had gone the other way, the historians may say, "That
action was supposed to delay the war, but actually it sped it up
because the action made the opponent panic."
So I guess the above still isn't very rigorous. It's more a "stream
of consciousness" kind of description. However, I want to emphasize
again that my intuitive understanding of a "chaotic event" and "trend
event" has served me very well for 15 years, even if I can't explain
it rigorously.
(12-16-2019, 09:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Sure. The exact timing is random. That doesn't mean you can't do
> things that can speed it up or slow it down, like kidnap Israeli
> soldiers or sell off large blocks of stock. It's just that it's
> probabilistic, rather than deterministic, so you can't be sure
> that what you do will work; it probably won't, so it's hard to
> plan for.
FishbellykanakaDude Wrote:> A "war" is indeed a chaotic "event", in that "event" here means:
> "underway but not finished as of the present" way (aka: the
> continuous/progressive grammatical aspect kinda
> way),.. essentially making it a system and not a "point
> event",.. where "point event" is the "perfected form/aspect" ("it
> happened and it's state is forever static" as in "the cat died")
> of "event".
You're both right that I haven't been rigorous in using the Chaos
Theory terminology. In fact, I've tried several times in the past to
give a rigorous definition of the relationship between Generational
Dynamics and Chaos Theory, and although I have an intuitive
understanding of the relationship, I've failed to explain it
rigorously. So here's where I'll try again.
For years, I've been using the phrase "chaotic event," and it's worked
very well for me, even if it's not an official term of Chaos Theory.
When I use the term, it means something that Generational Dynamics
can't predict. When something can be predicted, it's called a "trend
event," meaning that it must happen at some time. ("If something
(some trend) can't go on forever, then it won't.") So we have trend
events and chaotic events.
To put it another way, in the last 15 years I've made thousands of
Generational Dynamics predictions about hundreds of countries and
regions throughout history. Those predictions have all come true or
are trending true. None has been wrong. That's because I've avoided
predicting things that can't be predicted, and that's what Chaos
Theory tells me. There are some things that Chaos Theory tells me
cannot be predicted by Generational Dynamics, and those are "chaotic
events" or "chaotic timings."
So how does Chaos Theory "tell me" that some major event cannot be
predicted? The answer is to do an informal mental test of whether a
"small event" or a "random event" can affect whether or not the event
will occur.
For example, I always describe election results as chaotic, and can't
be predicted. There are a couple of informal mental tests that prove
this. For example, a butterfly could flap its wings in China and
cause a rainstorm in North America that affects election turnout, and
therefore the outcome. Another example is that some girl could come
forward at the last minute and make some sexual accusation of one of
the candidates, and that could affect the election outcome. In fact,
any random last-minute scandal of any kind could affect the election
results.
Another common mental test is whether the event is controlled by one
person or a small group of people. The Israeli-Hezbollah war could be
an example of this. The war was triggered by actions of a small group
of people - the abduction, the decision to declare war.
It's really a remarkable example. On July 11, 2006, there was no
thought of war. On July 13, 2006, they were at war. So what happened
on July 12, 2006? Could the same thing have happened a few days
earlier? That's far from certain. Maybe on July 12 some Israeli
politician was sick at home, and if he'd been in his office, then he
would have stopped the war, so there wouldn't have been a war on some
other day.
On the other hand, we can safely predict that there will be a new
Mideast war between Jews and Arabs, although we can't predict the
exact time or the exact scenario. This prediction is driven powerful
generational forces, and can't be derailed by a person being sick at
home or a change in the weather.
However, then there's a related concept called "the trigger." A new
Mideast war may be 100% certain, and when it occurs we may be able to
identify a trigger, and the trigger may be a random event that itself
cannot be predicted. So the war is a trend event, but the trigger
would be a chaotic event.
The 1929 panic was a trend event -- it had to happen. But there's
never been an identifiable trigger, so the panic itself is a chaotic
event. Or perhaps I would say that the timing of the event is
chaotic.
In fact, a "panic" is, almost by definition, a chaotic event.
One more thing: I disagree that a war can be predictably sped up or
slowed down if the war is triggered by a panic. In fact, if you take
some action with the intention of slowing down the rush to war, then
it may backfire by causing a panic to occur earlier than otherwise.
Of course, politicians and historians later may say that such an
action slowed down the war, but that's only because the events already
happened. If it had gone the other way, the historians may say, "That
action was supposed to delay the war, but actually it sped it up
because the action made the opponent panic."
So I guess the above still isn't very rigorous. It's more a "stream
of consciousness" kind of description. However, I want to emphasize
again that my intuitive understanding of a "chaotic event" and "trend
event" has served me very well for 15 years, even if I can't explain
it rigorously.
