To reject chaos is to reject the very nature of decay, and to reject the source of order.
Chaos is simply order unrecognized by a lesser mind. If we had the technology or distance we could order all things, but we do not and likely will never have such. This doesn't mean they aren't ordered, it means we don't know the order. Sets containing all sets may contain themselves, and if they don't those that aren't contained are a set onto themselves. By literally naming it and having a concept of it, we have ordered it and it ceases to be actual chaos.
Its not rejecting decay, its believing that you can understand that decay with enough knowledge.
"I shouldn't have let him outside" is a recognition of the 1 lbs of weight you carry
But that weight is not one to carry to begin with as the consequences and problems from literally never letting him outside are far more immediate and likely, compared to the relatively small risk that was inherent to letting him go outside. You shouldn't even let that have weight upon you because it was an absurd thought not based in reality to do so. It should be nobodies weight because its worthless to think.
And the reason I believe in that isn't because I think its the perfect solution, but that its necessary for some people to live. The types who if you even let the tiniest thoughts like that creep in, it will dominate their mind. They need an external loci of control to maintain their stability.
Chaos is simply order unrecognized by a lesser mind. If we had the technology or distance we could order all things, but we do not and likely will never have such.
This is fundamentally not true of the universe. I know, I've had this argument before with physicists who were Determinists. It shouldn't surprise anyone here that scientists who are looking for the last and final equation, think that they can effectively find a way to perfectly order the universe. Einstein was one of them, and it was one of the primary reasons why he rejected Quantum Mechanics. He refused to accept random chance ("God does not play dice"), and insisted that Quantum Mechanics was just the result of probabilities from hidden variables. Long story short, we can mathematically pre-suppose hidden variables using statistical analysis, rather than Quantum Mechanics, and low and behold, Quantum Mechanics isn't a cover for hidden variables, it's a completely different set of different rules that involves random chance.
By literally naming it and having a concept of it, we have ordered it and it ceases to be actual chaos.
I think our impasse is going to be semantic, because mathematical and scientific chaos is not defined as "lack of any possible analysis". It means that a 'chaotic system' is one where the results are utterly unpredictable (within some range), because the smallest and nearly irrelevant changes in input make it so that no calculation is guaranteed to get you a consistent or predictive result. This is often demonstrated with the double-pendulum experiment. The equations for calculating how a double pendulum will move are well known and well established. It is not possible to predict how the pendulum will move because the system is so fundamentally unstable that it's not possible to do that calculation with any accuracy.
And because I've had this discussion, I know where the next retort is going to be: "That's still an ordered system, you would just need to make better calculations with less error. You could predict it if you knew all the initial conditions of the pendulum, with 100% accuracy." But that's still not true either, and that is because the universe literally prevents us from being able to get to that level of "resolution". It's the same problem expressed in different ways, depending on the field: it's Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem in Mathematics, it's the Halting Problem in Computer Science, it's the Knowledge Problem in Economics, it's the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics. The level of detail and specificity of knowledge about the system that you are seeking is physically impossible because you are either no longer capable of using the measuring tools you have, you are effecting the system by measuring it, or you are asking a question that does match reality because you no longer understand the system at this resolution.
The fundamental point is that you can't have any logical system that solves a chaotic equation to get a predictable result. Determinism can't solve randomness. And randomness does exist.
But that weight is not one to carry to begin with as the consequences and problems from literally never letting him outside are far more immediate and likely, compared to the relatively small risk that was inherent to letting him go outside.
But that's still a misunderstanding of "weight" as we are putting it. Never letting someone go outside isn't taking proper responsibility, it's just an immature risk avoidance behavior. It's as you say, it would do far more damage. That is ignoring your responsibility to allow your child to live their lives, and ignoring your responsibility to bear the weight of the risk of life. No different from a boy claiming he will never love again because his highschool sweet heart Janey Rotten-crotch ditched him.
They need an external loci of control to maintain their stability.
I disagree. I believe they only need that external loci because of their own internal weakness. For whatever reason, they haven't developed or matured enough to not need it, and so it becomes (as we mentioned earlier) a crutch. But it should be a goal to stop using that crutch in order to finally be healed.
It is because you presupposed my arguments and went off on a complete tangent I wasn't even going to go in and had no interest in going into. You should try not to do that as it makes you seem incredibly pretentious. My belief is philosophical, not quantum or what have you. You have listed numerous ways we know its unable to be measured perfectly, which to me says it is in its own system of order beyond our comprehension.
You'll notice I didn't just list tech, but also distance as the limiter. Both in terms of big/small picture and the limitations of the human mind for how far away we are from even finding a starting thread. We will never have a proper fixed point with which to lever the universe, so most of its ordering will be beyond our feeble existences. An imperfect tool itself is both comprehending the universe and then attempting to measure it, which is one of the foundational paradoxes discussed in the Psychological Field.
Its ironic, that for your extreme pushing in this very conversation for internal loci of control you reject the very foundational belief that allows it, which is the delusional belief that all things can be linked back to your own actions instead of being complete chance.
I believe they only need that external loci because of their own internal weakness
The point you keep jumping over is humans are weak. You may be brick shithouse super brain, but most aren't and never will be. You can't learn them into it, you can't age them into it, you can do nothing to fix the fundamental flaws that have defined humanity for millenniums. Some people will heal their broken leg, some people will limp for the rest of their life and that crutch is in fact necessary for them to ever walk again.
Chaos is simply order unrecognized by a lesser mind. If we had the technology or distance we could order all things, but we do not and likely will never have such. This doesn't mean they aren't ordered, it means we don't know the order. Sets containing all sets may contain themselves, and if they don't those that aren't contained are a set onto themselves. By literally naming it and having a concept of it, we have ordered it and it ceases to be actual chaos.
Its not rejecting decay, its believing that you can understand that decay with enough knowledge.
But that weight is not one to carry to begin with as the consequences and problems from literally never letting him outside are far more immediate and likely, compared to the relatively small risk that was inherent to letting him go outside. You shouldn't even let that have weight upon you because it was an absurd thought not based in reality to do so. It should be nobodies weight because its worthless to think.
And the reason I believe in that isn't because I think its the perfect solution, but that its necessary for some people to live. The types who if you even let the tiniest thoughts like that creep in, it will dominate their mind. They need an external loci of control to maintain their stability.
This is fundamentally not true of the universe. I know, I've had this argument before with physicists who were Determinists. It shouldn't surprise anyone here that scientists who are looking for the last and final equation, think that they can effectively find a way to perfectly order the universe. Einstein was one of them, and it was one of the primary reasons why he rejected Quantum Mechanics. He refused to accept random chance ("God does not play dice"), and insisted that Quantum Mechanics was just the result of probabilities from hidden variables. Long story short, we can mathematically pre-suppose hidden variables using statistical analysis, rather than Quantum Mechanics, and low and behold, Quantum Mechanics isn't a cover for hidden variables, it's a completely different set of different rules that involves random chance.
I think our impasse is going to be semantic, because mathematical and scientific chaos is not defined as "lack of any possible analysis". It means that a 'chaotic system' is one where the results are utterly unpredictable (within some range), because the smallest and nearly irrelevant changes in input make it so that no calculation is guaranteed to get you a consistent or predictive result. This is often demonstrated with the double-pendulum experiment. The equations for calculating how a double pendulum will move are well known and well established. It is not possible to predict how the pendulum will move because the system is so fundamentally unstable that it's not possible to do that calculation with any accuracy.
And because I've had this discussion, I know where the next retort is going to be: "That's still an ordered system, you would just need to make better calculations with less error. You could predict it if you knew all the initial conditions of the pendulum, with 100% accuracy." But that's still not true either, and that is because the universe literally prevents us from being able to get to that level of "resolution". It's the same problem expressed in different ways, depending on the field: it's Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem in Mathematics, it's the Halting Problem in Computer Science, it's the Knowledge Problem in Economics, it's the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics. The level of detail and specificity of knowledge about the system that you are seeking is physically impossible because you are either no longer capable of using the measuring tools you have, you are effecting the system by measuring it, or you are asking a question that does match reality because you no longer understand the system at this resolution.
The fundamental point is that you can't have any logical system that solves a chaotic equation to get a predictable result. Determinism can't solve randomness. And randomness does exist.
But that's still a misunderstanding of "weight" as we are putting it. Never letting someone go outside isn't taking proper responsibility, it's just an immature risk avoidance behavior. It's as you say, it would do far more damage. That is ignoring your responsibility to allow your child to live their lives, and ignoring your responsibility to bear the weight of the risk of life. No different from a boy claiming he will never love again because his highschool sweet heart Janey Rotten-crotch ditched him.
I disagree. I believe they only need that external loci because of their own internal weakness. For whatever reason, they haven't developed or matured enough to not need it, and so it becomes (as we mentioned earlier) a crutch. But it should be a goal to stop using that crutch in order to finally be healed.
It is because you presupposed my arguments and went off on a complete tangent I wasn't even going to go in and had no interest in going into. You should try not to do that as it makes you seem incredibly pretentious. My belief is philosophical, not quantum or what have you. You have listed numerous ways we know its unable to be measured perfectly, which to me says it is in its own system of order beyond our comprehension.
You'll notice I didn't just list tech, but also distance as the limiter. Both in terms of big/small picture and the limitations of the human mind for how far away we are from even finding a starting thread. We will never have a proper fixed point with which to lever the universe, so most of its ordering will be beyond our feeble existences. An imperfect tool itself is both comprehending the universe and then attempting to measure it, which is one of the foundational paradoxes discussed in the Psychological Field.
Its ironic, that for your extreme pushing in this very conversation for internal loci of control you reject the very foundational belief that allows it, which is the delusional belief that all things can be linked back to your own actions instead of being complete chance.
The point you keep jumping over is humans are weak. You may be brick shithouse super brain, but most aren't and never will be. You can't learn them into it, you can't age them into it, you can do nothing to fix the fundamental flaws that have defined humanity for millenniums. Some people will heal their broken leg, some people will limp for the rest of their life and that crutch is in fact necessary for them to ever walk again.