CT+LA=AP

[philosopher101]

I did somethinking one night and determined htat if you comined the CHAOS THEROY and the LAW OF AVERAGES, you can mathematicly prove that anything is possible given time.

 

The chaos theroy describes how over time specific funcitons intednted to give specific results, can and do give unexpected, unusual and or random results. The law of averages desribing how if a result has a porbably chance that it will occur naturally for "balance."

 

Thus in combination of the two;

Anythings can happen, if they can they will, therefore these things will happen.

Anything is possible!

 

This can also be debated as the chaos as a theroy is yet to be proven or disproved.

You can also argue that A=>B or that A<=B so logically that C is not nesccisarily proven automaticlly.

A being CT, B beign LA, and C being AP.

 

What do you think all of you.

[jaysus]

chaos theory doesnt state that results are random... they just appear to be but are caused by tiny conditions in the original state...

 

the law of averages is usually not applicable - see "gamblers falacy" on that

 

---------

 

and i dont understand your equations... would you plz define the variables?

a=b doesnt necessarily result in t=p... afterall what is the connection between t,p and a,b? plz clarify

 

---------

 

time space relativity is what can make everything possible at least everything one can think of... as thoughts are just energy jumping from synapsis to synapsis - and matter turns to energy if it decelerates towards 0c whereas energy becomes matter if it accelerates towards 1c... thus it only depends on the point of view and every thought can be reality (how that transfers i dont know tho)

 

(see those experiments where they accelerate particles towards light speed on that... they never reach 1c as the energy put into makes the matter grow equally but turns back to normal mass if it gets slower)

[philosopher101]

My "Equation" is

 

Chaos theroy (CT) and (+) Law of averages means (=) that anythign is possible (AP)

 

but i do totally agree with tat after having checked, the "gambler" refrence.

And yes i suppose "random" isn't the word, but i didn#t want to you butterfly affect, beacuse that would invole Ashton Kutcher and i don't want to go there.

[jaysus]

ah i wouldnt necessarily make it that complicated :) the butterfly effect indeed is crazy if you try to proove it but thats not our job here ;)

 

now i understand your equation i thought its somekind of mathematical proof for your theory in the first place...

 

well dont abuse that thought-to-reality-power plz :whistling:

[Ethre]

I thought Murphy's Law proved that only the bad things will happen.

 

;)

[nosisab]

What is missing is scope. No function can describe the "whole" of possibilities. In this Jaysus is right; linear functions are mathematical secure harbors where non linear functions depends on initial conditions than no resolution frame can grant.

This is why the same input variables on the same nonlinear functions generates those pseudo random patterns. Yet those results will keep definite ranges they can't escape.

[philosopher101]

My proposed equation does not hold any truth as a function,

But as a mathematical proof, Could it be said that if CT is in conhjunction with LA that anything is possible?

 

A mathematical proof being one of those fun things you did in high school triganometry, where you take previoulsy established facts of math and combine them to "prove" a concept or in triganometries case that side A is 23 inches long. Ah i miss those days.

 

So as a proof not a function would the combination of the CT and LA produce proof that anything is possible. (at least suggest it)

 

 

I may beign going off on a tangent, but this makes sense to me.

Ha i made a punny joke.

[jaysus]

it prooves nothing :P

[wasder]

Anything most certaintly cannot happen. Example: Destroying, or creating energy. Me lifting an elephant on my little finger.

 

GIven time, the laws of physics will not change, and my finger simply cannot become that strong. And it is also unlikely that anyone will (unaided) lift an elephant on their little finger, because it is highly unlikely that we would evolve uber-strong little fingers.

[jaysus]

mmh thats not really true...

let me take another example...

 

---driving through the cologne dome with a vw golf--- its basicly impossible but once in 10.000 times there is the chance that you can due to the molecules being at exactly the right position to not interfere with each other...

i wouldnt necessarily try that tho...

 

as to the elephant... if id be standing in a place which in relation to the molecules/particles of the elephant would not move at all hed have zero mass... a leightweight so to speak...

 

and apart from that i could even lift an elephant right in front of you even without ... in a swimming pool :P

there is even a form of swimming pool on which the elephant could walk on... quicksilver :D