Utter Chaos

What greater beauty can be found then in the principles of non-linear dynamics as applied to nature itself? Chaos theory supposes that all natural systems are chaotic by nature, and that this chaos is characterized by the determination of some phenomena by a multitude of known variables and seemingly redundant factors. Such is the complexity of nature, thus the very essence of deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

All things within nature are matter that follow chaotic laws, for their state or condition is dependent upon specific and non-specific factors. All phenomena of matter are thus the ultimate exemplification of directly known causes and indirect or seemingly insufficiently-causable factors. We can derive from some specific phenomenon its taxonomy of causation, wherein each level of causations are, or may be, related unto each other. And so then, as we go down the levels of causation, by level of significance or directness, we find nothing else but natural law itself. And so by looking at direct causes we may find for each of such obvious causes that there is a coherent taxonomy of indirect or uneasily observed factors playing a role in the respective phenomenon. Thus nature, in this sense of total complexity, is observed to have a chaotic-like behavior.

From here we must then understand that chaos theory disallows room for randomness. This is because pure randomness allows for no preceding casual factors – let alone some taxonomy of causal agents. Seeming randomness is observed only whenever some phenomenon is not accounted for by all actual taxonomic causal agents. Thus, from the view of chaos theory, observed randomness is an illusion.

From here we then see that the term ‘error’ is actually fallacious on grounds that if all natural systems be complexly deterministic, then errors necessarily cannot occur. This is only if we define error as some abnormality that is not clearly defined from the currently known taxonomy or causal factors. Thus things are seen as ‘errors’ only when no full comprehension of the phenomenon exists.

To go even further with this, I must assert that all predictions of natural phenomena are nothing but probabilistic not because they are fundamentally random, but that there currently exists no total understanding of the phenomenon at hand. Unless scientists and researchers have stopped their research as they have finally exhausted all known possible causal agents – even those that seem insignificant or redundant – we cannot proclaim that nature is fundamentally random. Fact is, however, research continues – and there is so much more to learn about and understand of.

The non-assertion of a random nature validates Chaos Theory. For to claim that nature if innately random – not chaotic – is to then say that all mathematical physics and natural law are arbitrary, and that such rules of nature are bound to non-definable change. We can then only ask what we can we measure at all or mathematically rationalize about. The answer is nothing. If nature is random, no axiom of nature or mathematics holds any truth throughout eternity. Therefore, nothing is coherent and taxonomical in causal hierarchy conception. Then, logic itself can refute its own validity, and thus nothing makes sense at all. And so, by argumentation via contradiction, Chaos Theory is necessarily true – that nature is fundamentally utterly chaotic.