What do you think?
Rate this book
Chaos: Making a New Science
Few writers distinguish themselves by their ability to write about complicated, even obscure topics clearly and engagingly. In Chaos, James Gleick, a former science writer for the New York Times, shows that he resides in this exclusive category. Here he takes on the job of depicting the first years of the study of chaos--the seemingly random patterns that characterise many natural phenomena.
This is not a purely technical book. Instead, it focuses as much on the scientists studying chaos as on the chaos itself. In the pages of Gleick's book, the reader meets dozens of extraordinary and eccentric people. For instance, Mitchell Feigenbaum, who constructed and regulated his life by a 26-hour clock and watched his waking hours come in and out of phase with those of his coworkers at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
As for chaos itself, Gleick does an outstanding job of explaining the thought processes and investigative techniques that researchers bring to bear on chaos problems. Rather than attempt to explain Julia sets, Lorenz attractors and the Mandelbrot Set with gigantically complicated equations, Chaos relies on sketches, photographs and Gleick's wonderful descriptive prose. --Christine Buttery
384 pages, Paperback
First published October 29, 1987
5228 people are currently reading
77955 people want to read
About the author
James Gleick
28 books2,035 followersJames Gleick (born August 1, 1954) is an American author, journalist, and biographer, whose books explore the cultural ramifications of science and technology. Three of these books have been Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award finalists, and they have been translated into more than twenty languages.
Born in New York City, USA, Gleick attended Harvard College, graduating in 1976 with a degree in English and linguistics. Having worked for the Harvard Crimson and freelanced in Boston, he moved to Minneapolis, where he helped found a short-lived weekly newspaper, Metropolis. After its demise, he returned to New York and joined as staff of the New York Times, where he worked for ten years as an editor and reporter.
He was the McGraw Distinguished Lecturer at Princeton University in 1989-90. Gleick collaborated with the photographer Eliot Porter on Nature's Chaos and with developers at Autodesk on Chaos: The Software. In 1993, he founded The Pipeline, an early Internet service. Gleick is active on the boards of the Authors Guild and the Key West Literary Seminar.
His first book, Chaos: Making a New Science, an international best-seller, chronicled the development of chaos theory and made the Butterfly Effect a household phrase.
Among the scientists Gleick profiled were Mitchell Feigenbaum, Stephen Jay Gould, Douglas Hofstadter, Richard Feynman and Benoit Mandelbrot. His early reporting on Microsoft anticipated the antitrust investigations by the U. S. Department of Justice and the European Commission. Gleick's essays charting the growth of the Internet included the "Fast Forward" column on technology in the New York Times Magazine from 1995 to 1999 and formed the basis of his book What Just Happened. His work has also appeared in The New Yorker, the Atlantic, Slate, and the Washington Post.
Bibliography:
1987 Chaos: Making a New Science, Viking Penguin. (ISBN 0140092501)
1990 (with Eliot Porter) Nature's Chaos, Viking Penguin. (ISBN 0316609420)
1992 Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, Pantheon. (ISBN 0679747044)
1999 Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything, Pantheon. (ISBN 067977548X)
2000 (editor) The Best American Science Writing 2000, HarperCollins. (ISBN 0060957360)
2002 What Just Happened: A Chronicle from the Electronic Frontier, Pantheon. (ISBN 0375713913)
2003 Isaac Newton, Pantheon. (ISBN 1400032954)
2011 The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood. New York: Pantheon Books. (ISBN 9780375423727 )
Born in New York City, USA, Gleick attended Harvard College, graduating in 1976 with a degree in English and linguistics. Having worked for the Harvard Crimson and freelanced in Boston, he moved to Minneapolis, where he helped found a short-lived weekly newspaper, Metropolis. After its demise, he returned to New York and joined as staff of the New York Times, where he worked for ten years as an editor and reporter.
He was the McGraw Distinguished Lecturer at Princeton University in 1989-90. Gleick collaborated with the photographer Eliot Porter on Nature's Chaos and with developers at Autodesk on Chaos: The Software. In 1993, he founded The Pipeline, an early Internet service. Gleick is active on the boards of the Authors Guild and the Key West Literary Seminar.
His first book, Chaos: Making a New Science, an international best-seller, chronicled the development of chaos theory and made the Butterfly Effect a household phrase.
Among the scientists Gleick profiled were Mitchell Feigenbaum, Stephen Jay Gould, Douglas Hofstadter, Richard Feynman and Benoit Mandelbrot. His early reporting on Microsoft anticipated the antitrust investigations by the U. S. Department of Justice and the European Commission. Gleick's essays charting the growth of the Internet included the "Fast Forward" column on technology in the New York Times Magazine from 1995 to 1999 and formed the basis of his book What Just Happened. His work has also appeared in The New Yorker, the Atlantic, Slate, and the Washington Post.
Bibliography:
1987 Chaos: Making a New Science, Viking Penguin. (ISBN 0140092501)
1990 (with Eliot Porter) Nature's Chaos, Viking Penguin. (ISBN 0316609420)
1992 Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, Pantheon. (ISBN 0679747044)
1999 Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything, Pantheon. (ISBN 067977548X)
2000 (editor) The Best American Science Writing 2000, HarperCollins. (ISBN 0060957360)
2002 What Just Happened: A Chronicle from the Electronic Frontier, Pantheon. (ISBN 0375713913)
2003 Isaac Newton, Pantheon. (ISBN 1400032954)
2011 The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood. New York: Pantheon Books. (ISBN 9780375423727 )
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,587 reviews
January 18, 2014
Chaos: The Tip of a Giant Iceberg
Gleick only gives an introduction about the actual science and beauty of Chaos. Instead he focusses on giving a poetic account of the scientists who first stumbled on it -- and their great surprise and their struggles form the narrative crux of the book.
While some may say this makes it a less informative book, for me this made it one of the most intriguing non-fiction books I have read. Gleick's way of telling the stories makes the reader share in the wonder and incredulity of each pioneer as he stumbled upon this hitherto unguessed truth of nature. Each stumbling step, each misguided attempt and every remonstration expected in such a new endeavor is traced out in loving detail and these scientists come alive as insecure dramers daring to step beyond the realms of the possible. Gleick makes heroes out of Mandelbrot Benoît and the others and weaves an otherworldly charm around their ideas. This made the book pure poetry for me.
The amazing pictures and illustrations and the quotes accompanying each chapter all add to the feeling of reading an art text book rather than a science book. And this ultimately was the real achievement of Gleick in writing Chaos - He manages to convey to us that this is the first foray of science into the realm of art - not just of explaining art but of being art.
But ultimately none of this is going to be the lasting impact of this book. The reading pleasure and the hero worship of these daredevils is transient after all. For me, the real impact is that it has changed the way I look at the ordinary everyday world - the leaves, the trees, the pebbles, the pattern on the peels of an orange - everything is strangely magnified and beautiful now. I see the poetry of constant motion and evolution everywhere and I can feel the science of Chaos intuitively as I take my long walks. I can see Strange Attractors and Fractals and unstable equilibriums in the most mundane places. And this is the greatest gift of the book.
P.S. Don't miss out on the exhaustive endnotes. They are indispensable.
Gleick only gives an introduction about the actual science and beauty of Chaos. Instead he focusses on giving a poetic account of the scientists who first stumbled on it -- and their great surprise and their struggles form the narrative crux of the book.
While some may say this makes it a less informative book, for me this made it one of the most intriguing non-fiction books I have read. Gleick's way of telling the stories makes the reader share in the wonder and incredulity of each pioneer as he stumbled upon this hitherto unguessed truth of nature. Each stumbling step, each misguided attempt and every remonstration expected in such a new endeavor is traced out in loving detail and these scientists come alive as insecure dramers daring to step beyond the realms of the possible. Gleick makes heroes out of Mandelbrot Benoît and the others and weaves an otherworldly charm around their ideas. This made the book pure poetry for me.
The amazing pictures and illustrations and the quotes accompanying each chapter all add to the feeling of reading an art text book rather than a science book. And this ultimately was the real achievement of Gleick in writing Chaos - He manages to convey to us that this is the first foray of science into the realm of art - not just of explaining art but of being art.
But ultimately none of this is going to be the lasting impact of this book. The reading pleasure and the hero worship of these daredevils is transient after all. For me, the real impact is that it has changed the way I look at the ordinary everyday world - the leaves, the trees, the pebbles, the pattern on the peels of an orange - everything is strangely magnified and beautiful now. I see the poetry of constant motion and evolution everywhere and I can feel the science of Chaos intuitively as I take my long walks. I can see Strange Attractors and Fractals and unstable equilibriums in the most mundane places. And this is the greatest gift of the book.
P.S. Don't miss out on the exhaustive endnotes. They are indispensable.
February 27, 2016
"The future is disorder."
― Tom Stoppard, Arcadia
“The unpredictable and the predetermined unfold together to make everything the way it is.”
― Tom Stoppard, Arcadia
Half of what draws me to physics, to theory, to Feynman and Fermat, to Wittgenstein and Weber, is the energy that boils beyond the theory. The force living just beyond the push. I'm not alone. Many of my favorite authors (Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) and musicians (Mahler, Beethoven, etc) all dance around this same wicked fire. This burn of the natural world, this magic of the unknown, is what draws me to read physics and philosophy as an absolute amature. There are pieces and fractures in these books that actually DON'T escape me. They hit my brain and spin and keep spinning forever. I imagine this is something felt also by Gleick, one of the top tier science writers out there.
My big grievance with this book is it falls too short. His narrative is compelling, yes, the stories are interesting, sure, but he doesn't grab the central characters as well as a new journalist like John McPhee does. He floats too far above the actual science and complexity. He shows you pictures and dances around the pools of chaos and clouds of complexity, but never actually puts the reader INTO the churning water or shoots the reader into energized, cumuliform heaps.
This is a book for an advanced HS senior or an average college Freshman. It is pop-science and definitely has its place. This is a book that is more about translating the story of the science (not the science) for NOT the layman, but really the lazy layman. That is probably one of the reasons it did so well. Anyway, I'm glad I read it, but just wish it was deeper, thicker, and way less predictable.
― Tom Stoppard, Arcadia
“The unpredictable and the predetermined unfold together to make everything the way it is.”
― Tom Stoppard, Arcadia
Half of what draws me to physics, to theory, to Feynman and Fermat, to Wittgenstein and Weber, is the energy that boils beyond the theory. The force living just beyond the push. I'm not alone. Many of my favorite authors (Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) and musicians (Mahler, Beethoven, etc) all dance around this same wicked fire. This burn of the natural world, this magic of the unknown, is what draws me to read physics and philosophy as an absolute amature. There are pieces and fractures in these books that actually DON'T escape me. They hit my brain and spin and keep spinning forever. I imagine this is something felt also by Gleick, one of the top tier science writers out there.
My big grievance with this book is it falls too short. His narrative is compelling, yes, the stories are interesting, sure, but he doesn't grab the central characters as well as a new journalist like John McPhee does. He floats too far above the actual science and complexity. He shows you pictures and dances around the pools of chaos and clouds of complexity, but never actually puts the reader INTO the churning water or shoots the reader into energized, cumuliform heaps.
This is a book for an advanced HS senior or an average college Freshman. It is pop-science and definitely has its place. This is a book that is more about translating the story of the science (not the science) for NOT the layman, but really the lazy layman. That is probably one of the reasons it did so well. Anyway, I'm glad I read it, but just wish it was deeper, thicker, and way less predictable.
September 11, 2020
لم أبدأ الكتاب إلا بعد نصيحة من أحد مُراجعي الكتاب على الموقع، ينصح من ليس له باع في الرياضيات بألا يخاف من الإقدام على قراءته ويعده بالكثير من الحماس!
حسناً، يمكنني القول أنني لم أفهم أكثر من نصف ما جاء في الكتاب، ربما بحكم بعد دراستي عن هذا أمور "المرعبة"، فالكتاب يعج بتجارب فيزيائية ومبادئ رياضية عجزت عن تصورها. ولكن نصيحة القارئ تحققت جزئياً، فقد أصبح لدي حماس كبير لمعرفة المزيد عن نظرية الفوضى.
سأبدأ بعيوب الكتاب؛ كانت هناك معلومات لا داع لها على الإطلاق، فماذا سأستفيد من معرفة مكان سكن العالم الفولاني في مدينة ما؟ وما الذي سيضيفه وصف هيئة عالم ما بالممتلئ؟ ربما رأى الكاتب أن هذه المعلومات قد تكسر من حدة جفاف أسلوب الكتاب ولكنها في الواقع جاءت متكلفة.
كان هناك مشكلة في التبويب وشعرت بفوضى في طرح المعلومات، بدا وكأن الكاتب يريد أن يرينا مثالاً عملياً لنظرية الفوضى في كتابه.
توقعت أن أنتهي من الكتاب وقد فهمت ما هي نظرية الفوضى، ولكن الذي حدث أن الكتاب كان أشبه بــ "سيرة حياة" للنظرية أكثر منه إلى شرح واف للنظرية، كما علق أحد مُراجعي الكتاب على الموقع،
فقد تم ذكر الكثير عن نشأة النظرية والتحديات التي واجهها العلماء الذين تبنوها والتجارب التي قاموا بإجرائها والمؤتمرات التي حضروها، ولكن في النهاية وجدت القليل عن مفهوم النظرية وعلاقتها بالأمثلة التي ساقها
أين الحماس إذن في خضم كل هذا؟
بعد تنحية العديد من التفاصيل غير المفهومة في الكتاب، أعتقد أنني خرجت بموضوعين هامين:
الأول عن إدوارد لورنز
في عام 1961 كان إدوارد لورنز عالم الأرصاد ذو الخلفية الفيزيائية يقوم بنموذج محاكاة لحالة الطقس وذلك بإدخال معطيات أولية لكمبيوتر بدائي، ليقوم الجهاز بإخراج رسوم بيانية تساعد على التنبؤ بحالة الطقس، في هذه المرة كان يعيد إدخال المعطيات الأولية لمرة ثانية، بعد فترة من عمل الجهاز عاد لورنز ليجد مفاجأة مدهشة، فعلى الرغم من أنه قام بإدخال المعطيات نفسها إلا أن الرسوم البيانية جاءت مختلفة عن ذي قبل، ظن لورنز أن هناك خطأ بالجهاز ولكنه فطن فيما بعد إلى أنه قام بإدخال أرقام تقريبية عن المرة الأولى ظناً منه أن الفرق الهين، ومقداره كسر من الألف، لن يصنع فارقاً.
قرر لورنز إعادة التجربة مع نمطين متقاربين من الطقس (لا يختلفان سوى في فروق طفيفة في الأوضاع الأولية) فكانت هذه هي النتيجة
========
في البداية كانا متطابقين، ثم ظهر فرق بسيط. مع الدورة التالية، ظهر فرق واضح. وبعد دورات تلاشى كل شبه بينهما.
= = = = =
ومن هنا جاء المصطلح الشهير: "أثر الفراشة" والذي اصطكه لورنز، هذا المثال يفترض أن حركة الهواء الذي تنتج عن تحرك جناحي الفراشة في مكان ما قادرة على أن تكون سبباً في إعصار في الناحية الأخرى من الكرة الأرضية
هذا المصطلح مجازي بالطبع، يُستخدم للتعبير عن مفهوم الاعتماد الحساس للحدث على الظروف الأولى المحيطة، قد يكون الحدث الأول بسيطاً في حد ذاته، لكنه يولد سلسلة متتابعة من النتائج والتطورات المتتالية والتي يفوق حجمها بمراحل حدث البداية، وبشكل قد لا يتوقعه أحد.
يمكن تقصي المفهوم نفسه في جوانب الحياة المختلفة، وعلى الفور وجدتني أتذكر ذلك الفيديو المأخوذ من فيلم: الحالة الغريبة لبنجامين بوتون
my link text
فلو تغيرت أي من هذه المقدمات البسيطة تغيراً بسيطاً، لما قامت عربة التاكسي بدهس دايزي
أما الموضوع الثاني فعن العالم بُنواه مانديلبروت
أدخل مانديلبروت العلم الذي قام بإرسائه "هندسة الفركتال" على العديد من العلوم: الإقتصاد، البيئة، الأحياء وغيرها
وكانت بداية عالم الرياضيات مع أسعار القطن، وبدا اكتشافه مذهلاً
"If you graph the history of cotton prices for all the years over the 140+ years of record-keeping, and then graph the prices for any period of time–one year, one decade, one week–during that period, the graphs will display the same pattern!" ـ Mandelbrot
= = = = =
نمط معين يتكرر على نحو مغاير، البساطة والتعقيد في آن واحد، النظام واللانظام، هذه هي هندسة الفركتال
وفي الطبيعة من حولنا نجد "هندسة التكرار المتغير" واضحة للعيان
في ورق الأشجار،
وفي أشكال الخضر ..
وفي ندف الثلج وفي تفريعات أوعيتنا الدموية، وفي سنا البرق ..
وهكذا نجد أن هندسة التكرار المتغير تمثل هندسة الطبيعة نفسها، إنها أشبه بالبصمة التي تطالعنا في كل ما حولنا، بصمة الخالق لهذا الكون
ما علاقة هذه الحقائق بنظرية الفوضى؟ هذا هو اجتهادي الشخصي: في مثال ندف الثلج، يصعُب التنبؤ بشكل كل حبة ثلج والتي تعتمد على أسباب أولية يؤدي التغير البسيط في إحداها إلى تغيُر الشكل نهائياً (على الرغم من أن طريقة التكوين واحدة)، في الوقت نفسه، عند تراكم ذرات الثلج، تتكون تفاصيل ندف الثلج على نمط تكراري متغير فتبدو على هذا الشكل الساحر.
تبدو هناك علاقة "خفية" أشعر بها ولكن لا أستوعبها بالكامل.
ولكن من المؤكد أن هذه المعلومات تفتح باباً للتأمل في هذا الكون بنظرة جديدة بدلاً من النظرة الاعتيادية لما حولنا، وتوضح كيف أن الثورة العلمية تتطلب ألا يُلزِم الأكاديميون أنفسهم بحدود تخصاصتهم، كما فعل عالم الرياضيات مانديلبروت الذي بدأ بتأمل رسم بياني عن أسعار القطن لينتهي بعلم الفراكتال الذي يدخل في كل ما حولنا
حسناً، يمكنني القول أنني لم أفهم أكثر من نصف ما جاء في الكتاب، ربما بحكم بعد دراستي عن هذا أمور "المرعبة"، فالكتاب يعج بتجارب فيزيائية ومبادئ رياضية عجزت عن تصورها. ولكن نصيحة القارئ تحققت جزئياً، فقد أصبح لدي حماس كبير لمعرفة المزيد عن نظرية الفوضى.
سأبدأ بعيوب الكتاب؛ كانت هناك معلومات لا داع لها على الإطلاق، فماذا سأستفيد من معرفة مكان سكن العالم الفولاني في مدينة ما؟ وما الذي سيضيفه وصف هيئة عالم ما بالممتلئ؟ ربما رأى الكاتب أن هذه المعلومات قد تكسر من حدة جفاف أسلوب الكتاب ولكنها في الواقع جاءت متكلفة.
كان هناك مشكلة في التبويب وشعرت بفوضى في طرح المعلومات، بدا وكأن الكاتب يريد أن يرينا مثالاً عملياً لنظرية الفوضى في كتابه.
توقعت أن أنتهي من الكتاب وقد فهمت ما هي نظرية الفوضى، ولكن الذي حدث أن الكتاب كان أشبه بــ "سيرة حياة" للنظرية أكثر منه إلى شرح واف للنظرية، كما علق أحد مُراجعي الكتاب على الموقع،
فقد تم ذكر الكثير عن نشأة النظرية والتحديات التي واجهها العلماء الذين تبنوها والتجارب التي قاموا بإجرائها والمؤتمرات التي حضروها، ولكن في النهاية وجدت القليل عن مفهوم النظرية وعلاقتها بالأمثلة التي ساقها
أين الحماس إذن في خضم كل هذا؟
بعد تنحية العديد من التفاصيل غير المفهومة في الكتاب، أعتقد أنني خرجت بموضوعين هامين:
الأول عن إدوارد لورنز
في عام 1961 كان إدوارد لورنز عالم الأرصاد ذو الخلفية الفيزيائية يقوم بنموذج محاكاة لحالة الطقس وذلك بإدخال معطيات أولية لكمبيوتر بدائي، ليقوم الجهاز بإخراج رسوم بيانية تساعد على التنبؤ بحالة الطقس، في هذه المرة كان يعيد إدخال المعطيات الأولية لمرة ثانية، بعد فترة من عمل الجهاز عاد لورنز ليجد مفاجأة مدهشة، فعلى الرغم من أنه قام بإدخال المعطيات نفسها إلا أن الرسوم البيانية جاءت مختلفة عن ذي قبل، ظن لورنز أن هناك خطأ بالجهاز ولكنه فطن فيما بعد إلى أنه قام بإدخال أرقام تقريبية عن المرة الأولى ظناً منه أن الفرق الهين، ومقداره كسر من الألف، لن يصنع فارقاً.
قرر لورنز إعادة التجربة مع نمطين متقاربين من الطقس (لا يختلفان سوى في فروق طفيفة في الأوضاع الأولية) فكانت هذه هي النتيجة
========
في البداية كانا متطابقين، ثم ظهر فرق بسيط. مع الدورة التالية، ظهر فرق واضح. وبعد دورات تلاشى كل شبه بينهما.
= = = = =
ومن هنا جاء المصطلح الشهير: "أثر الفراشة" والذي اصطكه لورنز، هذا المثال يفترض أن حركة الهواء الذي تنتج عن تحرك جناحي الفراشة في مكان ما قادرة على أن تكون سبباً في إعصار في الناحية الأخرى من الكرة الأرضية
هذا المصطلح مجازي بالطبع، يُستخدم للتعبير عن مفهوم الاعتماد الحساس للحدث على الظروف الأولى المحيطة، قد يكون الحدث الأول بسيطاً في حد ذاته، لكنه يولد سلسلة متتابعة من النتائج والتطورات المتتالية والتي يفوق حجمها بمراحل حدث البداية، وبشكل قد لا يتوقعه أحد.
يمكن تقصي المفهوم نفسه في جوانب الحياة المختلفة، وعلى الفور وجدتني أتذكر ذلك الفيديو المأخوذ من فيلم: الحالة الغريبة لبنجامين بوتون
my link text
فلو تغيرت أي من هذه المقدمات البسيطة تغيراً بسيطاً، لما قامت عربة التاكسي بدهس دايزي
أما الموضوع الثاني فعن العالم بُنواه مانديلبروت
أدخل مانديلبروت العلم الذي قام بإرسائه "هندسة الفركتال" على العديد من العلوم: الإقتصاد، البيئة، الأحياء وغيرها
وكانت بداية عالم الرياضيات مع أسعار القطن، وبدا اكتشافه مذهلاً
"If you graph the history of cotton prices for all the years over the 140+ years of record-keeping, and then graph the prices for any period of time–one year, one decade, one week–during that period, the graphs will display the same pattern!" ـ Mandelbrot
= = = = =
نمط معين يتكرر على نحو مغاير، البساطة والتعقيد في آن واحد، النظام واللانظام، هذه هي هندسة الفركتال
وفي الطبيعة من حولنا نجد "هندسة التكرار المتغير" واضحة للعيان
في ورق الأشجار،
وفي أشكال الخضر ..
وفي ندف الثلج وفي تفريعات أوعيتنا الدموية، وفي سنا البرق ..
وهكذا نجد أن هندسة التكرار المتغير تمثل هندسة الطبيعة نفسها، إنها أشبه بالبصمة التي تطالعنا في كل ما حولنا، بصمة الخالق لهذا الكون
ما علاقة هذه الحقائق بنظرية الفوضى؟ هذا هو اجتهادي الشخصي: في مثال ندف الثلج، يصعُب التنبؤ بشكل كل حبة ثلج والتي تعتمد على أسباب أولية يؤدي التغير البسيط في إحداها إلى تغيُر الشكل نهائياً (على الرغم من أن طريقة التكوين واحدة)، في الوقت نفسه، عند تراكم ذرات الثلج، تتكون تفاصيل ندف الثلج على نمط تكراري متغير فتبدو على هذا الشكل الساحر.
تبدو هناك علاقة "خفية" أشعر بها ولكن لا أستوعبها بالكامل.
ولكن من المؤكد أن هذه المعلومات تفتح باباً للتأمل في هذا الكون بنظرة جديدة بدلاً من النظرة الاعتيادية لما حولنا، وتوضح كيف أن الثورة العلمية تتطلب ألا يُلزِم الأكاديميون أنفسهم بحدود تخصاصتهم، كما فعل عالم الرياضيات مانديلبروت الذي بدأ بتأمل رسم بياني عن أسعار القطن لينتهي بعلم الفراكتال الذي يدخل في كل ما حولنا
June 15, 2025
I could listen to my audiobook of this one, over and over again, forever and a day! Gleick starts out in the fifties - with the Los Alamos underground nuclear test physicists discovering that rapid fluctuations in local weather could only be mapped mathematically by Feynman Graphics. The quantum late physicist Richard Feynman produced them to map out the meteorological effects of the blasts he witnessed.
We Aspies, more keenly sensitive even than Feynman, will find a wealth of info here that is applicable to our moods! My own moods swing into high gear when I begin to let the stress out by a nap.
Neurotypicals too, who are may be less sensitive will find this book to be nevertheless a pleasant diversion.
Explaining the inexplicable can only, these scientists found, be explained by what became known by them as the Chaos Theory of Quantum Physics. One can graph out rapid changes in such things as stable matter mathematically and elegantly by assuming Chaos is suddenly calling the shots!
Two years ago in the Ottawa Valley we experienced a Dericho - a sudden, unpredicted weather freak storm - firsthand. It was scarier in our rural open spaces, with roofs unhinged from barns, shattered into mere scrap.No, there were no fatalities, or any Dorothy’s whisked off to Oz, but you get my drift.
In 60’s Los Alamos, more and more Quantum Specialsts were convinced that Chaos is WORKABLE. The theory gained speed of distribution.
More and more minds were convinced of it, from mainstream weather predicters to the autistic community.
To us Aspies, it toys with our minds…
How better to debunk traditional Freudian psycho analytics?
Trauma therapy works better!
And Trauma, to us, is best described as an autistic reaction to Chaos.
We Aspies, more keenly sensitive even than Feynman, will find a wealth of info here that is applicable to our moods! My own moods swing into high gear when I begin to let the stress out by a nap.
Neurotypicals too, who are may be less sensitive will find this book to be nevertheless a pleasant diversion.
Explaining the inexplicable can only, these scientists found, be explained by what became known by them as the Chaos Theory of Quantum Physics. One can graph out rapid changes in such things as stable matter mathematically and elegantly by assuming Chaos is suddenly calling the shots!
Two years ago in the Ottawa Valley we experienced a Dericho - a sudden, unpredicted weather freak storm - firsthand. It was scarier in our rural open spaces, with roofs unhinged from barns, shattered into mere scrap.No, there were no fatalities, or any Dorothy’s whisked off to Oz, but you get my drift.
In 60’s Los Alamos, more and more Quantum Specialsts were convinced that Chaos is WORKABLE. The theory gained speed of distribution.
More and more minds were convinced of it, from mainstream weather predicters to the autistic community.
To us Aspies, it toys with our minds…
How better to debunk traditional Freudian psycho analytics?
Trauma therapy works better!
And Trauma, to us, is best described as an autistic reaction to Chaos.
December 8, 2007
I did study a bit of Physics in a past life, but you don't need to have a background in science to get something out of this book. It sounds terribly difficult, but really it isn't.
This book gives a wonderful explanation of the Butterfly Effect - one of those ideas in science that everyone thinks they know and understands, but that generally people have upside down and back to front.
I really do like popular science books, particularly if they are well written, relatively easy to follow and don't leave me feeling like I've been looking over an abyss for hours. Gleick never makes you feel this and takes you through some very difficult concepts with care and assurance. A wonderful guide through what would ordinarily be a very difficult and frightening landscape.
This book gives a wonderful explanation of the Butterfly Effect - one of those ideas in science that everyone thinks they know and understands, but that generally people have upside down and back to front.
I really do like popular science books, particularly if they are well written, relatively easy to follow and don't leave me feeling like I've been looking over an abyss for hours. Gleick never makes you feel this and takes you through some very difficult concepts with care and assurance. A wonderful guide through what would ordinarily be a very difficult and frightening landscape.
March 20, 2019
I'm totally in love with this book. Like, totally.
Why? Because it GETS ME, MAN.
Just kidding. I'm not anthropomorphizing a breakthrough in science. Although, if I was, I'd DEFINITELY be cuddling with this stream of seemingly random information that keeps repeating in regular ways, forming order from seeming chaos.
Give me a seed and I will make you a universe. Or one hell of a trippy fractal.
I think I'll leave butterflies out of this.
Small changes affect great extrapolations.
Our physics generators in video games relies on this. So do aeronautical research, weather forecasts, stock market prediction, presidential elections and the resulting public outrage, and the fluid dynamics of my creamer swirling in my coffee. Not to mention galaxy formation, fingerprints, shells, coastlines, or the thing that made the little dinos get the upper hand in those movies. :)
Truly, though, this book does a great job at explaining and giving us the unusual history of the science that brought pure mathematics out of the clouds and back into the real world, dealing with our observable reality. Newton was okay for some things but all these new equations describe just HOW little uncertainties can create huge chaotic messes... and still be reduced back to first causes. :)
Neat, huh? I'm totally stoked by these bad boys. Of course, we're all, yeah, we use those equations all the time now and it's old hat, but not so long ago, they were totally in left field and none of the big boys wanted to play with them.
So, yeah, it's like a total paradigm shift, man. I'm FEEL'N it.
Why? Because it GETS ME, MAN.
Just kidding. I'm not anthropomorphizing a breakthrough in science. Although, if I was, I'd DEFINITELY be cuddling with this stream of seemingly random information that keeps repeating in regular ways, forming order from seeming chaos.
Give me a seed and I will make you a universe. Or one hell of a trippy fractal.
I think I'll leave butterflies out of this.
Small changes affect great extrapolations.
Our physics generators in video games relies on this. So do aeronautical research, weather forecasts, stock market prediction, presidential elections and the resulting public outrage, and the fluid dynamics of my creamer swirling in my coffee. Not to mention galaxy formation, fingerprints, shells, coastlines, or the thing that made the little dinos get the upper hand in those movies. :)
Truly, though, this book does a great job at explaining and giving us the unusual history of the science that brought pure mathematics out of the clouds and back into the real world, dealing with our observable reality. Newton was okay for some things but all these new equations describe just HOW little uncertainties can create huge chaotic messes... and still be reduced back to first causes. :)
Neat, huh? I'm totally stoked by these bad boys. Of course, we're all, yeah, we use those equations all the time now and it's old hat, but not so long ago, they were totally in left field and none of the big boys wanted to play with them.
So, yeah, it's like a total paradigm shift, man. I'm FEEL'N it.
July 25, 2021
It’s a quick read, though in the end I did not like CHAOS much. It is a breezy history of two decades of mostly disconnected work done by a number of different researchers in widely divergent areas of science. In an apparent coincidence, a small number of unrelated people became interested in studying aperiodic, non-linear problems arising in various fields of science all at roughly the same time. Their research had not advanced very far by the time this book was written in the mid-80s.
CHAOS was probably a little premature. It came too early which is reflected in the imprecision and shallow quality of Gleick's discussion, which can be frustratingly confusing at times.
In any event, there is no reason to read it now. It is out of date. I picked it up now, only because it has been on my shelf forever and I have long meant to read it. It was very successful with a general audience back when it was new.
I don't know if the leading thinkers on the subject would agree with this, but 'chaos theory' feels like a narrow slice of 'complexity theory' to me. For an elegant and comprehensive discussion of complexity theory, read Stephen Wolfram's ground-breaking work A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE published a decade ago and still making the news. It's the real deal.
CHAOS was probably a little premature. It came too early which is reflected in the imprecision and shallow quality of Gleick's discussion, which can be frustratingly confusing at times.
In any event, there is no reason to read it now. It is out of date. I picked it up now, only because it has been on my shelf forever and I have long meant to read it. It was very successful with a general audience back when it was new.
I don't know if the leading thinkers on the subject would agree with this, but 'chaos theory' feels like a narrow slice of 'complexity theory' to me. For an elegant and comprehensive discussion of complexity theory, read Stephen Wolfram's ground-breaking work A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE published a decade ago and still making the news. It's the real deal.
June 16, 2021
الكتاب علمي بحت وهذا النوع من الكتب يحتاج للصبر ثم الصبر خاصة للعوام أمثالي أما أصحاب الاختصاص فلهم هدف محدد يعرفونه قبل قراءة الكتاب
المعلومات مهمة ولكن المؤلف وكأنه يشعر بأن كل ما يقوله يحتاج للمزيد لفهم أكثر فأطال وأسهب في بعض النقاط لحد يوصل القارئ لرغبة متكررة لترك الكتاب أحيانا
ولكن بالمجمل الكتاب نافع وهو يطرق بابا لا بد لنا من معرفته وبما أننا نزعم بأننا نمثل الفئة المثقفة في المجتمع كقراء فهو واجب القارئ
نظرية الكايوس أو الفوضى أو الشواش كلها واحد
لو اردنا اختصار يناسبنا نحن معشر العموم بما أننا لسنا من أهل الاختصاص فهي نظرية حديثة تقوم على البحث عن القوانين التي تحكم الظواهر العشوائية
فهي ترى أن لا شيء يحدث بعشوائية انما هناك قوانين حتى للعشوائية ولكن العلم لم يتوصل لها بعد
لمزيد من الايضاح كمثال أي شيء يحدث حولنا لو نأخذ مثلا أن ترى أمامك ( حوض الغسيل فيه فقاقيع الصابون ترى بعضها تكبر وبعضها صغيرة وبعضها تختفي وبعضها تلتصق سوية ) نظرية الكايوس لا ترى انها امر عشوائي يحدث هكذا بعشوائية في كل مرة - انما ترى ان كل هذه الحركة للفقاقيع لها قانون يحكمها ولكن لم نعرفه بعد
مثال آخر وقفت امام مدرسة يخفق على ساريتها علم أو راية هذا الخفقان للراية بسبب حركة الرياح ليس عشوائي انما له قانون وهو يحدد كل خفقاته وحركته
هذا ان صح كمثال لكل ما تدور حوله نظرية الكايوس
-----
اقتباس :
تأتي الثورات العلمية عندما يظهر علم جديد من قلب آخر وصل إلى نهاية مسدودة
كثيرا ما تملك الثورة القدرة على عبور التقسيمات بين الاختصاصات العلمية
وكثيرا ما تأتي اكتشافاتها من أشخاص تسكنهم هواجس تبدو غير مبررة في نظر غيرهم وكثيرا ما ترفض مقالاتهم وينظر إلى أطروحاتهم باعتبارها غير مجدية
ويبدو هؤلاء المتمردون غير متيقنين من أي شيء لكنهم يغامرون بمصيرهم المهني يعملون بمفردهم ويخشون أن يفصحوا لأقرانهم عما يساورهم
المعلومات مهمة ولكن المؤلف وكأنه يشعر بأن كل ما يقوله يحتاج للمزيد لفهم أكثر فأطال وأسهب في بعض النقاط لحد يوصل القارئ لرغبة متكررة لترك الكتاب أحيانا
ولكن بالمجمل الكتاب نافع وهو يطرق بابا لا بد لنا من معرفته وبما أننا نزعم بأننا نمثل الفئة المثقفة في المجتمع كقراء فهو واجب القارئ
نظرية الكايوس أو الفوضى أو الشواش كلها واحد
لو اردنا اختصار يناسبنا نحن معشر العموم بما أننا لسنا من أهل الاختصاص فهي نظرية حديثة تقوم على البحث عن القوانين التي تحكم الظواهر العشوائية
فهي ترى أن لا شيء يحدث بعشوائية انما هناك قوانين حتى للعشوائية ولكن العلم لم يتوصل لها بعد
لمزيد من الايضاح كمثال أي شيء يحدث حولنا لو نأخذ مثلا أن ترى أمامك ( حوض الغسيل فيه فقاقيع الصابون ترى بعضها تكبر وبعضها صغيرة وبعضها تختفي وبعضها تلتصق سوية ) نظرية الكايوس لا ترى انها امر عشوائي يحدث هكذا بعشوائية في كل مرة - انما ترى ان كل هذه الحركة للفقاقيع لها قانون يحكمها ولكن لم نعرفه بعد
مثال آخر وقفت امام مدرسة يخفق على ساريتها علم أو راية هذا الخفقان للراية بسبب حركة الرياح ليس عشوائي انما له قانون وهو يحدد كل خفقاته وحركته
هذا ان صح كمثال لكل ما تدور حوله نظرية الكايوس
-----
اقتباس :
تأتي الثورات العلمية عندما يظهر علم جديد من قلب آخر وصل إلى نهاية مسدودة
كثيرا ما تملك الثورة القدرة على عبور التقسيمات بين الاختصاصات العلمية
وكثيرا ما تأتي اكتشافاتها من أشخاص تسكنهم هواجس تبدو غير مبررة في نظر غيرهم وكثيرا ما ترفض مقالاتهم وينظر إلى أطروحاتهم باعتبارها غير مجدية
ويبدو هؤلاء المتمردون غير متيقنين من أي شيء لكنهم يغامرون بمصيرهم المهني يعملون بمفردهم ويخشون أن يفصحوا لأقرانهم عما يساورهم
January 4, 2021
Most of science as we know it, as it was made in the first place, and as we learned about it in school is linear. That is we have a problem, which was successfully translated into an equation where the outputs are obtained by multiplying the inputs by a certain factor, while keeping everything in the first degree. Now of course in real life, things are much difficult, in many cases there are parameters which appear in both sides of the equation, making it second degree, a famous example being friction in the pendulum problem, which we disregard so often to keep things simple. The paradox is that although nonlinearity is almost the standard form in which Nature manifests itself to us, the entire tradition of Science, is based on transforming nonlinear systems to linear ones, creating an arsenal of mathematical tricks to do that, even worse, these complexities are viewed as ‘noises’, ‘irregularities’, something which ideally should not be there in the first place. This book tells of the journey of these scientists who challenged this mindset, and went to venture in this unexplored territories of science.
The research which will lead to the field the author calls Chaos appeared throughout so many disciplines, and spanned for the entire second half of the 20th century. From Meteorology, to Physics, then Mathematics, Astronomy, hydrodynamics, and finally Biology by the 80s. It started by individuals who pushed linearity to its limit. Now once the system is no longer periodic or predictable, we expect an erratic behavior which follows no pattern at all. The big surprise is that this was not the case, what we find instead is an order inside of disorder. Chaotic patterns which resembles each other but never repeat themselves identically, and thus the system never regains its periodicity. Another fascinating discovery is the extreme dependence on initial conditions, minor differences in inputs produce vastly different responses from the system, yet these responses preserves the same orderly chaotic pattern.
This strange results were of great interest to mathematicians, especially topologists, who study shapes. Their work led to other new discoveries, the most important of them is their independence from scale. The more you zoom in, the more they repeat themselves in the same manner. They called them Fractals. They gravitate around a state of equilibrium which they called a strange Attractor. its Universality was also proven. Thus a fair mathematical description was achieved eventually, but it was not in the traditional sense. In fact, most of the mathematics was experimental, which means by computer. Since most of mathematics was done by proof, this was very new inside of the field itself, and quit the breakthrough. At the same time, it was received with suspicion, after all it lacked a solid link with the natural world, and some thought of it as some kind of geometrical shapes obtained by someone playing with a computer.
To tackle this issue, physicists looked at Turbulence, being the complex phenomenon par excellence, an analogy between the start of turbulence in a stream and the phase transition of liquids provided a good start. With experimentation, finally a solid physical reality was given to this mathematical theorem. This would have not been possible without so many detours from other disciplines, such as Information Theory and Thermodynamics…
Now that these kind of doing science was quit established, other disciplines began to join the league, looking for solutions to problems which they previously lacked the adequate tools. Economists studying prices fluctuating in stock markets, ecologists predicting population growth and explaining massive extinctions, and finally physiologists trying to cure abnormal heart arrhythmia. With this vast array of applications, it is only the dawn of the Science of Chaos.
In the end, this was definitely a very light and fun read and that is quit the reason it is so popular. A great piece of journalistic popular science. However, the too many personal anecdotes and unrelated biographical details were too much for my taste. I which that time was invested in digging in more details on the subject.
The research which will lead to the field the author calls Chaos appeared throughout so many disciplines, and spanned for the entire second half of the 20th century. From Meteorology, to Physics, then Mathematics, Astronomy, hydrodynamics, and finally Biology by the 80s. It started by individuals who pushed linearity to its limit. Now once the system is no longer periodic or predictable, we expect an erratic behavior which follows no pattern at all. The big surprise is that this was not the case, what we find instead is an order inside of disorder. Chaotic patterns which resembles each other but never repeat themselves identically, and thus the system never regains its periodicity. Another fascinating discovery is the extreme dependence on initial conditions, minor differences in inputs produce vastly different responses from the system, yet these responses preserves the same orderly chaotic pattern.
This strange results were of great interest to mathematicians, especially topologists, who study shapes. Their work led to other new discoveries, the most important of them is their independence from scale. The more you zoom in, the more they repeat themselves in the same manner. They called them Fractals. They gravitate around a state of equilibrium which they called a strange Attractor. its Universality was also proven. Thus a fair mathematical description was achieved eventually, but it was not in the traditional sense. In fact, most of the mathematics was experimental, which means by computer. Since most of mathematics was done by proof, this was very new inside of the field itself, and quit the breakthrough. At the same time, it was received with suspicion, after all it lacked a solid link with the natural world, and some thought of it as some kind of geometrical shapes obtained by someone playing with a computer.
To tackle this issue, physicists looked at Turbulence, being the complex phenomenon par excellence, an analogy between the start of turbulence in a stream and the phase transition of liquids provided a good start. With experimentation, finally a solid physical reality was given to this mathematical theorem. This would have not been possible without so many detours from other disciplines, such as Information Theory and Thermodynamics…
Now that these kind of doing science was quit established, other disciplines began to join the league, looking for solutions to problems which they previously lacked the adequate tools. Economists studying prices fluctuating in stock markets, ecologists predicting population growth and explaining massive extinctions, and finally physiologists trying to cure abnormal heart arrhythmia. With this vast array of applications, it is only the dawn of the Science of Chaos.
In the end, this was definitely a very light and fun read and that is quit the reason it is so popular. A great piece of journalistic popular science. However, the too many personal anecdotes and unrelated biographical details were too much for my taste. I which that time was invested in digging in more details on the subject.
January 12, 2018
Gosh, I was rather rude about this one, wasn't I? I'm moving the rating up a bit after my re-read (on audio) because it wasn't that bad, although I still think it's a bit overrated.
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Gleick's Chaos is possibly one of the most overrated books ever written. The first two pages are quite good, before rapidly declining to dullness and staying there. The content consists of a few badly written half-biographies, a few pretty pictures and vignettes of science, and no worthwhile mathematics whatsoever. The result is neither interesting nor informative.
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Gleick's Chaos is possibly one of the most overrated books ever written. The first two pages are quite good, before rapidly declining to dullness and staying there. The content consists of a few badly written half-biographies, a few pretty pictures and vignettes of science, and no worthwhile mathematics whatsoever. The result is neither interesting nor informative.
August 15, 2019
This book, over two decades old now, is one of the great classics of science popularization. It was a blockbuster bestseller at the time, and it's still well worth reading, a fascinating, enjoyable introduction to one of the most important scientific developments of our time--the birth of chaos theory.
One of the compelling features of the chaos story is that this scientific breakthrough wasn't a physics, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, or biology breakthrough; it was all of them. A mathematician turned meteorologist, Edward Lorenz, builds a "toy weather" on what's still a fairly early computer in the early 1960s, and in working with the parameters, concludes that long-term weather forecasting is doomed--a simple deterministic system is producing unpredictable results. Mitchell Feigenbaum, a theoretical physicist at Los Alamos in the early seventies, and two other scientists working together independently of him, are working on the problem of turbulence and.discover that it doesn't, as anticipated, build up gradually in an orderly manner. Reach the tipping point, and there it is.
Beloit Mandelbrot, an IBM mathematician working with an equation that produces fractals, arrives to give a presentation to an economics class and finds "his" equation already on the board; the patterns he's found in pure math also apply in economics, the reproductive rates and numbers of animal populations, and countless other places.
In each field, also, the initial work was most often either resisted or ignored. Precisely because chaos was popping up all over, with just a few people in each of many different scientific fields, it was easy for scientists in any field to notice a paper or presentation, note the fact that is was completely different from the methods, logic, math that had relevance for their own work, that much of the work was in fact being done in other fields--and dismiss it. For new doctoral students, there were no mentors in chaos theory, no jobs, no journals devoted to chaos theory. It completely upended ideas about how the natural world worked. It was heady, exciting--and much harder to explain than to demonstrate. Much of what the first generation of chaos scientists did is incredibly easy to demonstrate with a laptop computer today--but most of these chaos pioneers were working with handheld calculators, mainframe computers with dump terminals and limited and unreliable access for something so peripheral to the institution's perceived mission, computers whose only output device was a plotter.
Gleick very effectively conveys the science, the excitement the early scientists working on it felt, and the challenges that faced them.
Highly recommended.
One of the compelling features of the chaos story is that this scientific breakthrough wasn't a physics, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, or biology breakthrough; it was all of them. A mathematician turned meteorologist, Edward Lorenz, builds a "toy weather" on what's still a fairly early computer in the early 1960s, and in working with the parameters, concludes that long-term weather forecasting is doomed--a simple deterministic system is producing unpredictable results. Mitchell Feigenbaum, a theoretical physicist at Los Alamos in the early seventies, and two other scientists working together independently of him, are working on the problem of turbulence and.discover that it doesn't, as anticipated, build up gradually in an orderly manner. Reach the tipping point, and there it is.
Beloit Mandelbrot, an IBM mathematician working with an equation that produces fractals, arrives to give a presentation to an economics class and finds "his" equation already on the board; the patterns he's found in pure math also apply in economics, the reproductive rates and numbers of animal populations, and countless other places.
In each field, also, the initial work was most often either resisted or ignored. Precisely because chaos was popping up all over, with just a few people in each of many different scientific fields, it was easy for scientists in any field to notice a paper or presentation, note the fact that is was completely different from the methods, logic, math that had relevance for their own work, that much of the work was in fact being done in other fields--and dismiss it. For new doctoral students, there were no mentors in chaos theory, no jobs, no journals devoted to chaos theory. It completely upended ideas about how the natural world worked. It was heady, exciting--and much harder to explain than to demonstrate. Much of what the first generation of chaos scientists did is incredibly easy to demonstrate with a laptop computer today--but most of these chaos pioneers were working with handheld calculators, mainframe computers with dump terminals and limited and unreliable access for something so peripheral to the institution's perceived mission, computers whose only output device was a plotter.
Gleick very effectively conveys the science, the excitement the early scientists working on it felt, and the challenges that faced them.
Highly recommended.
August 27, 2008
The greatest discoveries of the 20th Century physics include Relativity Theory, Quantum Theory and Chaos Theory. Of the three, the only one that we can see and play with is chaos. From the flight patterns of flocks of birds, to heart arrhythmia, to stock market fluctuation to the coast of Alaska, the underlying patterns can be revealed in this wonderful branch of science. There are newer books on the subject but none better for us lay people.
September 3, 2016
( نظرية الكايوس أو الشواش)-تعد أحد أهم الثورات العلمية في القرن العشرين والعلم الحديث.
اذ تعتبر ثالث أهم نظرية بعد النسبية لآينشتاين والنظرية الكمومية( ميكانيكا الكم).
اشتهرت النظرية باسم «أثر جناح الفراشة»
الذي راج أولاً في أوساط خبراء الطقس- و تقول أن رفة جناح فراشة فوق بيجينغ تستطيع أن تغير نظام العواصف فوق نيويورك. وحسب المؤلف تعود أصول هذه النظرية لأعمال فكرية عدة في تاريخ العلم والثقافة .
غيرت النظرية الكثير في الأسس الفكرية والمنهجية التقليدية المتبعة، فهي تدحض مزاعم الحتمية والمحكم في العلم.
فكان لها أثر كبير في تطور الفيزياء النظرية، وكذا الرياضيات كما أثرت وألهمت الأدب.
تحاول هذه النظرية الوصول إلى المسارات الخفية من الشيء الظاهر( النظام الخفي ) وما تنطوي عليه من غموض، للتعرف على أسراره وآلياته في تشكيل النظام والثبات الظاهر للعيان لوضع قواعد وأسس لدراسته .
تقول هذه النظرية بأن جميع الأشياء من حولنا" الظواهر المعقدة في الحياة اليومية" بمافيها الإنسان تشكل" نوع من النظام من دون نسق دوري." بمعنى آخر؛ النظم الحية تتغير باستمرار.
فإن ما يبدو بسيطاً للعين كمدرك ينطوي على تعقيد وتشويش واهتزاز في باطنه.
إذاً نخلص من هذه النظرية بأن الواقع والحياة كنظام ديناميكي معقد ماهو إلا "توازن دقيق بين قوى الاستقرار والفوضى ."
نظرية الفوضى نظرية لكل العلوم. منحت الإنسان نظرة ورؤى مختلفة للعالم والأشياء من حوله.
اذ تعتبر ثالث أهم نظرية بعد النسبية لآينشتاين والنظرية الكمومية( ميكانيكا الكم).
اشتهرت النظرية باسم «أثر جناح الفراشة»
الذي راج أولاً في أوساط خبراء الطقس- و تقول أن رفة جناح فراشة فوق بيجينغ تستطيع أن تغير نظام العواصف فوق نيويورك. وحسب المؤلف تعود أصول هذه النظرية لأعمال فكرية عدة في تاريخ العلم والثقافة .
غيرت النظرية الكثير في الأسس الفكرية والمنهجية التقليدية المتبعة، فهي تدحض مزاعم الحتمية والمحكم في العلم.
فكان لها أثر كبير في تطور الفيزياء النظرية، وكذا الرياضيات كما أثرت وألهمت الأدب.
تحاول هذه النظرية الوصول إلى المسارات الخفية من الشيء الظاهر( النظام الخفي ) وما تنطوي عليه من غموض، للتعرف على أسراره وآلياته في تشكيل النظام والثبات الظاهر للعيان لوضع قواعد وأسس لدراسته .
تقول هذه النظرية بأن جميع الأشياء من حولنا" الظواهر المعقدة في الحياة اليومية" بمافيها الإنسان تشكل" نوع من النظام من دون نسق دوري." بمعنى آخر؛ النظم الحية تتغير باستمرار.
فإن ما يبدو بسيطاً للعين كمدرك ينطوي على تعقيد وتشويش واهتزاز في باطنه.
إذاً نخلص من هذه النظرية بأن الواقع والحياة كنظام ديناميكي معقد ماهو إلا "توازن دقيق بين قوى الاستقرار والفوضى ."
نظرية الفوضى نظرية لكل العلوم. منحت الإنسان نظرة ورؤى مختلفة للعالم والأشياء من حوله.
May 26, 2024
I remember learning about the Butterfly Effect for the first time when I watched a movie starring Ashton Kutcher which shares the same name.
This book is almost 40(!) years old now but seems to have held up extremely well over time.
I think James Gleick should be a reference exemplar for science writing.
He manages to straddle the extremely fine line where the technical explanations are either too dense or too dumbed down to deliver accessible explanations of phenomena.
His narration of historical events related to the development of this field are engaging as they are not just a chronicle of milestones but an dissection of the motivations of the major contributors.
So what is Chaos then?
What we've learned in high school physics and mathematics are "linear systems" and are actually applicable to a very small number of real world applications.
Given the initial conditions of these systems (e.g. mass, velocity etc of a planet), scientists can make very good predictions. Such as when they predict the next time a comet appears with margins of error less than seconds.
However, they are many systems that are "non-linear" where even when you know the initial conditions of the system, it is impossible build predictions about the future except for maybe a very short initial time window.
The best example of a non-linear system is the weather. But there are lots of other systems that are chaotic - turbulence in fluids, stock markets, the body's immune system etc
The predictions are hard because in non-linear systems, small differences in initial conditions lead to large difference in the future state of these systems.
And measurement tools never have 100% precision - which doesn't matter in linear system as small differences in initial conditions lead to small differences in future state of the system.
But it matters greatly in n0n-linear systems. For a long time, these chaotic systems were assumed to be random but in the 1960s, scientists began to show that they had a "orderly chaos" to them.
Work continues this day to identify and classify chaotic systems in various fields such as biology, ecology, physiology, neurology and hopefully, one day, build models that can predict their future states with considerable precision.
Sharing my notes here (Google Document)
This book is almost 40(!) years old now but seems to have held up extremely well over time.
I think James Gleick should be a reference exemplar for science writing.
He manages to straddle the extremely fine line where the technical explanations are either too dense or too dumbed down to deliver accessible explanations of phenomena.
His narration of historical events related to the development of this field are engaging as they are not just a chronicle of milestones but an dissection of the motivations of the major contributors.
So what is Chaos then?
What we've learned in high school physics and mathematics are "linear systems" and are actually applicable to a very small number of real world applications.
Given the initial conditions of these systems (e.g. mass, velocity etc of a planet), scientists can make very good predictions. Such as when they predict the next time a comet appears with margins of error less than seconds.
However, they are many systems that are "non-linear" where even when you know the initial conditions of the system, it is impossible build predictions about the future except for maybe a very short initial time window.
The best example of a non-linear system is the weather. But there are lots of other systems that are chaotic - turbulence in fluids, stock markets, the body's immune system etc
The predictions are hard because in non-linear systems, small differences in initial conditions lead to large difference in the future state of these systems.
And measurement tools never have 100% precision - which doesn't matter in linear system as small differences in initial conditions lead to small differences in future state of the system.
But it matters greatly in n0n-linear systems. For a long time, these chaotic systems were assumed to be random but in the 1960s, scientists began to show that they had a "orderly chaos" to them.
Work continues this day to identify and classify chaotic systems in various fields such as biology, ecology, physiology, neurology and hopefully, one day, build models that can predict their future states with considerable precision.
Sharing my notes here (Google Document)
May 18, 2014
When reading science books, it's difficult to know whether what you're reading is current or not. Gleick's book was first published in 1987, so I imagine by now there have been many developments and modifications to the ideas and theories presented here. That being said, this felt like a good introduction to the early history of scientists' efforts to understand and explain nonlinear systems and the apparent chaotic behavior observed in natural and man-made systems.
If you haven't studied science or mathematics beyond the basics taught in U.S. high schools, this book will be a challenge, but if you have an understanding of equations, geometry, and scientific research methods, you should be able to understand everything Gleick discusses here.
I enjoyed this investigation of the order underlying what we perceive as disorder, especially fractals. If I had the time, I'd like to run the calculations myself, as they seem within the reach of anyone with a laptop. Maybe this summer....
If you haven't studied science or mathematics beyond the basics taught in U.S. high schools, this book will be a challenge, but if you have an understanding of equations, geometry, and scientific research methods, you should be able to understand everything Gleick discusses here.
I enjoyed this investigation of the order underlying what we perceive as disorder, especially fractals. If I had the time, I'd like to run the calculations myself, as they seem within the reach of anyone with a laptop. Maybe this summer....
May 19, 2020
4 Stars for Chaos: Making A New Science (audiobook) by James Gleik read by Rob Shapiro. I find it fascinating to see how science is progressing. Such a new idea is changing the way we look at the world.
June 22, 2025
În anii '60, ca să facă economie de timp, meteorologul Edward Lorenz a introdus în computer valoarea 0,506 pentru temperatură, în loc de 0,506127. O presupunere rezonabilă, doar meteorologii nu pot cunoaște temperatura din mijlocul oceanului până la trei zecimale. A fost surprins să constate că rezultatul a ieșit complet diferit.
Edward Lorenz a observat cum, pornind din aproape același punct, vremea virtuală producea tipare tot mai diferite, până când dispărea orice asemânare. Dependența sensibilă de condițiile inițiale poarte numele de Efectul Fluterului. Este motivul pentru care mai departe de două-trei zile, chiar și cele mai bune prognoze din lume sunt pure speculații, iar dincolo șase-șapte zile devin inutile.
Teoria haosului a fost aplicată cu succes în afara fizicii, în biologia populațională, demografie, epidemiologie, economie și sociologie.
Până și-n viața de zi cu zi, calitatea lorenziană a dependenței sensibile de condițiile inițiale pândește la fiecare pas. Un om pleacă de acasă dimineața cu 30 de secunde mai târziu, un ghiveci îi ratează capul cu câtiva milimetri, apoi este călcat de un camion. Sau, mai puțin dramatic pierde un autobuz care trece din zece în zece minute - și care trebuia să-l ducă la un tren care trece din oră în oră. Perturbările mărunte din traiectoria noastră zilnică pot avea consecințe importante.
Haosul poate genera structură, coerență și stabilitate. Un exemplu de structură haotică stabilă este Marea Pată Roșie de pe suprafața planetei Jupiter, obiect care o fost descoperit acum patru sute de ani, și care nu dă semne că s-ar dezintegra prea curând.
Este o carte dificilă, tehnică pe alocuri.
Recomand
Edward Lorenz a observat cum, pornind din aproape același punct, vremea virtuală producea tipare tot mai diferite, până când dispărea orice asemânare. Dependența sensibilă de condițiile inițiale poarte numele de Efectul Fluterului. Este motivul pentru care mai departe de două-trei zile, chiar și cele mai bune prognoze din lume sunt pure speculații, iar dincolo șase-șapte zile devin inutile.
Teoria haosului a fost aplicată cu succes în afara fizicii, în biologia populațională, demografie, epidemiologie, economie și sociologie.
Până și-n viața de zi cu zi, calitatea lorenziană a dependenței sensibile de condițiile inițiale pândește la fiecare pas. Un om pleacă de acasă dimineața cu 30 de secunde mai târziu, un ghiveci îi ratează capul cu câtiva milimetri, apoi este călcat de un camion. Sau, mai puțin dramatic pierde un autobuz care trece din zece în zece minute - și care trebuia să-l ducă la un tren care trece din oră în oră. Perturbările mărunte din traiectoria noastră zilnică pot avea consecințe importante.
Haosul poate genera structură, coerență și stabilitate. Un exemplu de structură haotică stabilă este Marea Pată Roșie de pe suprafața planetei Jupiter, obiect care o fost descoperit acum patru sute de ani, și care nu dă semne că s-ar dezintegra prea curând.
Este o carte dificilă, tehnică pe alocuri.
Recomand
November 8, 2010
Not so much a new science as an old obsession of a few mystics... :(
Gleick gives an unorganized overview some fun mathematical concepts like fractals, strange attractors, and chaos theory.
But he exaggerates the importance of these topics, presenting them as a holistic revolution in physics, overthrowing reductionism, which just isn't the case.
The last chapter was incomprehensible hippie mysticism, then the book just ended leaving me wondering what the whole point was.
It seems to me like this book represents a time in history before people had gotten accustom to handling complexity and information theory in computers. Having grown up with a computer, I found most points argued in this book painfully obvious common sense.
Gleick gives an unorganized overview some fun mathematical concepts like fractals, strange attractors, and chaos theory.
But he exaggerates the importance of these topics, presenting them as a holistic revolution in physics, overthrowing reductionism, which just isn't the case.
The last chapter was incomprehensible hippie mysticism, then the book just ended leaving me wondering what the whole point was.
It seems to me like this book represents a time in history before people had gotten accustom to handling complexity and information theory in computers. Having grown up with a computer, I found most points argued in this book painfully obvious common sense.
April 4, 2024
James Gleick – Caos
Este era um livro que há muito aguardava na estante para ser lido. Guardava-o como uma guloseima para saborear a espectativa até à sua concretização.
Ora, como quase sempre quando as espectativas são elevadas o risco de desilusão é grande. E foi assim, desde as primeiras páginas que o senti, como uma desilusão.
Desilusão pela forma como está escrito, com pouco rigor, abusando das citações e expressões matemáticas que para o público em geral são muitas vezes incompreensíveis, misturando atabalhoadamente dados biográficos com o trabalho desenvolvido, sem grande lógica nos capítulos e na sua sequenciação, sem uma harmonia que nos permita chegar ao final e dizer, a mensagem, é esta!
Posso mesmo dizer que sem as pesquisas adicionais ficaria muito longe de compreender muito do livro e a natureza da sua principal mensagem. É um livro confuso, mal escrito e de leitura muito difícil, mas que contudo, e apesar destas críticas teve a utilidade de ajudar a desbravar este tema.
Há muito que me interrogo sobre a repetição das formas na natureza. Basta andar de avião a baixa altitude e observar as copas das arvores a formarem um padrão, que para quem conhece as culturas das placas de Petri, não pode deixar de ficar impressionado com as semelhanças. Há no mundo algo profundamente oculto, longe da vista que nos surpreende pela sua repetição desde as escalas micro até as mais macro quando observamos imagens de galáxias distantes. Toda este repetição da geometria, toda esta fractualidade – um termo cujo significado aprendi neste livro, deve ser resultado de algo oculto. Ora bem, era a resposta a esta questão o que procurava da leitura deste livro, e foi esse o principal motivo de desilusão. É que para um livro publicado em 2005 na sua terceira edição (a primeira é de 1987) deveria ser um pouco mais curioso na demanda de respostas a estes tipos de questões.
E efectivamente, se o universo tem um comportamento determinista, mas um tipo de determinismo em que frequentemente uma causa não implica sempre a mesma consequência, é algo que nos deve intrigar.
O livro de james Gleick tenta responder a este tipo de questões pelo lado da matemática e das equações não-lineares, sugerindo que o nosso universo é o resultado dessas ou de outras expressões matemáticas, mas não o é! A matemática é uma linguagem com a qual podemos descrever o mundo, não o inverso, insistir nisso é um erro calamitoso. Pensar que uma dada expressão matemática pode ter um dado desempenho, então o mundo também deverá ter esse tipo de comportamento.
Foi isso que senti ao longo do livro, um conjunto de ideias matemáticas à procura de uma aplicação no mundo real. E se essa aplicabilidade parece real em alguns domínios como a meteorologia, as transições de estado, as emergências, as já outros domínios onde tenta ser aplicada como na sociologia, na epidemiologia ou no estudos dos mercados, estas equações não lineares correspondem a uma das variáveis que controlam estes sistemas complexos, mas estão longe de os explicar na sua globalidade.
Já a tentativa de explicar alguns dos comportamento da biologia como o sistema imunológico, as epidemias e perturbações neurológicas e psiquiátricas com base nestas teorias e nas equações não-lineares, é no mínimo absurdo.
Apesar dos vários aspectos negativos que lhe apontei acabei por o classificar com 4 estrelas, e se o fiz foi porque apesar de tudo o texto compila um conjunto de informação muito dispersa, e que dificilmente se encontra acessível num só local.
Em resumo, a melhor divulgação científica não deve apenas comunicar informação, mas deve também inspirar e expandir nossa compreensão do mundo de forma acessível e significativas.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
James Gleick - Chaos
This was a book that had long been waiting on the shelf to be read. I kept it like a treat, savoring the anticipation until its realization. However, as is almost always the case when expectations are high, the risk of disappointment is great. And so it was, from the first pages I felt it, as a disappointment. Disappointment because it is written, with poor rigor, using excessively quotations and mathematical expressions that are often incomprehensible to the general public, clumsily mixing biographical data with the developed work, without great logic in the chapters and their sequencing, without a harmony that allows us to reach the end and understand the message. I can even say that without additional research I could not understand the nature of the main message. It is a confusing book, poorly written, and very difficult to read, but nonetheless, and despite these criticisms, it was useful in helping to pioneer this topic.
I have long wondered about the repetition of shapes in nature. Just fly at low altitude and observe the treetops forming a pattern, which for those familiar with Petri dish cultures, cannot help but be impressed by the similarities. There is something deeply hidden in the world, far from sight that surprises us with its repetition from micro to macro scales when we observe images of distant galaxies. All this repetition of geometry, all this fractality - a term whose meaning I learned in this book, must be the result of something hidden. Well, it was the answer to this question that I sought from reading this book, and that was the main reason for disappointment. For a book published in 2005 in its third edition (the first is from 1987), it should be a bit more curious in seeking answers to these types of questions.
Indeed, if the universe has a deterministic behavior, but a type of determinism in which often a cause does not always imply the same consequence, it is something that should intrigue us. James Gleick's book attempts to answer these kinds of questions from the side of mathematics and nonlinear equations, suggesting that our universe is the result of these or other mathematical expressions, but it is not! Mathematics is a language with which we can describe the world, not the reverse is a calamitous error. To think that a given mathematical expression can have a given performance, then the world should also have that type of behavior.
That was what I felt throughout the book, a set of mathematical ideas in search of an application in the real world. And if this applicability seems real in some domains like meteorology, state transitions, emergencies, there are other domains where it tries to be applied like in sociology, epidemiology, or market studies, these nonlinear equations correspond to one of the variables that control these complex systems but are far from explaining them in their entirety. The attempt to explain some of the behavior of biology like the immune system, epidemics, and neurological and psychiatric disturbances based on these theories and nonlinear equations is at least absurd.
Despite the various negative aspects I pointed out, I ended up rating it with 4 stars, and if I did it was because, after all, the text compiles a set of very dispersed information, which is hardly accessible in one place.
In summary, the best scientific communication should not only convey information but should also inspire and broaden our understanding of the world in an accessible and meaningful way.
Este era um livro que há muito aguardava na estante para ser lido. Guardava-o como uma guloseima para saborear a espectativa até à sua concretização.
Ora, como quase sempre quando as espectativas são elevadas o risco de desilusão é grande. E foi assim, desde as primeiras páginas que o senti, como uma desilusão.
Desilusão pela forma como está escrito, com pouco rigor, abusando das citações e expressões matemáticas que para o público em geral são muitas vezes incompreensíveis, misturando atabalhoadamente dados biográficos com o trabalho desenvolvido, sem grande lógica nos capítulos e na sua sequenciação, sem uma harmonia que nos permita chegar ao final e dizer, a mensagem, é esta!
Posso mesmo dizer que sem as pesquisas adicionais ficaria muito longe de compreender muito do livro e a natureza da sua principal mensagem. É um livro confuso, mal escrito e de leitura muito difícil, mas que contudo, e apesar destas críticas teve a utilidade de ajudar a desbravar este tema.
Há muito que me interrogo sobre a repetição das formas na natureza. Basta andar de avião a baixa altitude e observar as copas das arvores a formarem um padrão, que para quem conhece as culturas das placas de Petri, não pode deixar de ficar impressionado com as semelhanças. Há no mundo algo profundamente oculto, longe da vista que nos surpreende pela sua repetição desde as escalas micro até as mais macro quando observamos imagens de galáxias distantes. Toda este repetição da geometria, toda esta fractualidade – um termo cujo significado aprendi neste livro, deve ser resultado de algo oculto. Ora bem, era a resposta a esta questão o que procurava da leitura deste livro, e foi esse o principal motivo de desilusão. É que para um livro publicado em 2005 na sua terceira edição (a primeira é de 1987) deveria ser um pouco mais curioso na demanda de respostas a estes tipos de questões.
E efectivamente, se o universo tem um comportamento determinista, mas um tipo de determinismo em que frequentemente uma causa não implica sempre a mesma consequência, é algo que nos deve intrigar.
O livro de james Gleick tenta responder a este tipo de questões pelo lado da matemática e das equações não-lineares, sugerindo que o nosso universo é o resultado dessas ou de outras expressões matemáticas, mas não o é! A matemática é uma linguagem com a qual podemos descrever o mundo, não o inverso, insistir nisso é um erro calamitoso. Pensar que uma dada expressão matemática pode ter um dado desempenho, então o mundo também deverá ter esse tipo de comportamento.
Foi isso que senti ao longo do livro, um conjunto de ideias matemáticas à procura de uma aplicação no mundo real. E se essa aplicabilidade parece real em alguns domínios como a meteorologia, as transições de estado, as emergências, as já outros domínios onde tenta ser aplicada como na sociologia, na epidemiologia ou no estudos dos mercados, estas equações não lineares correspondem a uma das variáveis que controlam estes sistemas complexos, mas estão longe de os explicar na sua globalidade.
Já a tentativa de explicar alguns dos comportamento da biologia como o sistema imunológico, as epidemias e perturbações neurológicas e psiquiátricas com base nestas teorias e nas equações não-lineares, é no mínimo absurdo.
Apesar dos vários aspectos negativos que lhe apontei acabei por o classificar com 4 estrelas, e se o fiz foi porque apesar de tudo o texto compila um conjunto de informação muito dispersa, e que dificilmente se encontra acessível num só local.
Em resumo, a melhor divulgação científica não deve apenas comunicar informação, mas deve também inspirar e expandir nossa compreensão do mundo de forma acessível e significativas.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
James Gleick - Chaos
This was a book that had long been waiting on the shelf to be read. I kept it like a treat, savoring the anticipation until its realization. However, as is almost always the case when expectations are high, the risk of disappointment is great. And so it was, from the first pages I felt it, as a disappointment. Disappointment because it is written, with poor rigor, using excessively quotations and mathematical expressions that are often incomprehensible to the general public, clumsily mixing biographical data with the developed work, without great logic in the chapters and their sequencing, without a harmony that allows us to reach the end and understand the message. I can even say that without additional research I could not understand the nature of the main message. It is a confusing book, poorly written, and very difficult to read, but nonetheless, and despite these criticisms, it was useful in helping to pioneer this topic.
I have long wondered about the repetition of shapes in nature. Just fly at low altitude and observe the treetops forming a pattern, which for those familiar with Petri dish cultures, cannot help but be impressed by the similarities. There is something deeply hidden in the world, far from sight that surprises us with its repetition from micro to macro scales when we observe images of distant galaxies. All this repetition of geometry, all this fractality - a term whose meaning I learned in this book, must be the result of something hidden. Well, it was the answer to this question that I sought from reading this book, and that was the main reason for disappointment. For a book published in 2005 in its third edition (the first is from 1987), it should be a bit more curious in seeking answers to these types of questions.
Indeed, if the universe has a deterministic behavior, but a type of determinism in which often a cause does not always imply the same consequence, it is something that should intrigue us. James Gleick's book attempts to answer these kinds of questions from the side of mathematics and nonlinear equations, suggesting that our universe is the result of these or other mathematical expressions, but it is not! Mathematics is a language with which we can describe the world, not the reverse is a calamitous error. To think that a given mathematical expression can have a given performance, then the world should also have that type of behavior.
That was what I felt throughout the book, a set of mathematical ideas in search of an application in the real world. And if this applicability seems real in some domains like meteorology, state transitions, emergencies, there are other domains where it tries to be applied like in sociology, epidemiology, or market studies, these nonlinear equations correspond to one of the variables that control these complex systems but are far from explaining them in their entirety. The attempt to explain some of the behavior of biology like the immune system, epidemics, and neurological and psychiatric disturbances based on these theories and nonlinear equations is at least absurd.
Despite the various negative aspects I pointed out, I ended up rating it with 4 stars, and if I did it was because, after all, the text compiles a set of very dispersed information, which is hardly accessible in one place.
In summary, the best scientific communication should not only convey information but should also inspire and broaden our understanding of the world in an accessible and meaningful way.
May 10, 2019
My interest in chaos theory and butterfly effect has been purely philosophical. I guess the idea of alternate reality always intrigues me. May be fueled by its implication in popular culture, movies, or books. First time, when I read Ray Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder", I was really moved by the idea how something very small might eventually affect something greater at later phases.
I also like two scenes from movies, one from "Mr. Nobody" that rain scene which washed away the address : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOCoJ...
And the car accident scene from "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldoHL...
And I have one favorite comic story "Daytripper" which depicts so many alternate deaths a man can die in his life. Actually, really we never know, how many alternate lives we are living every time we have been able to cross one of the busy roads successfully !
I know this implication of butterfly effect in popular culture is often erroneous. Because it's almost always impossible to know what factors actually tipped off a particular system. But there are always chances that changes in initial condition might accumulate into something different. Or they may not - maybe things happen inevitably. However, we have no way to learn!
And somehow I have developed my own version! I don't know when I started this thing, quite unconsciously, I guess. From time to time, on rare occasions, I would form a binary event tree of life and would try to figure out the initial events that accumulated into current condition of life. Obviously, there is no way to know! And obviously I am not trying to figure out what else could have happened! Maybe I am just trying to figure out the initial conditions of a Hidden Markov Model with life's current visible outcome. It's kind of fun! And there is no fixed rule. And you would always end up with a different answer based on where you decide to stop! You could stop looking for answers at personal level or at an impersonal level. It's just fun!
However, apart from all these philosophical implications about life, I really wanted to learn a bit of science behind chaos theory. This is my 2nd attempt at this book almost 2 years later and the book is still uninteresting as it was before. I believe this is one of the most "overrated" books out there. The book is hugely popular, always comes at first when you are looking for recommendations about chaos theory books. So, first time I really had doubts about myself. I thought maybe I am not doing justice to this book. I still had my doubts this time. So, I spent substantial amount of my time behind this book. And I think I have done enough and cannot do anything more for this book.
This is not actually a science book on Chaos thoery, rather a scientific history book about people who worked on Chaos theory. Bits of biographies from here and there and merged in little chapters which actually don't tell you anything useful/ informative about the science of chaos theory. The book is not rigorous at all! And it's really a disappointment! That's it.
I also like two scenes from movies, one from "Mr. Nobody" that rain scene which washed away the address : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOCoJ...
And the car accident scene from "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldoHL...
And I have one favorite comic story "Daytripper" which depicts so many alternate deaths a man can die in his life. Actually, really we never know, how many alternate lives we are living every time we have been able to cross one of the busy roads successfully !
I know this implication of butterfly effect in popular culture is often erroneous. Because it's almost always impossible to know what factors actually tipped off a particular system. But there are always chances that changes in initial condition might accumulate into something different. Or they may not - maybe things happen inevitably. However, we have no way to learn!
And somehow I have developed my own version! I don't know when I started this thing, quite unconsciously, I guess. From time to time, on rare occasions, I would form a binary event tree of life and would try to figure out the initial events that accumulated into current condition of life. Obviously, there is no way to know! And obviously I am not trying to figure out what else could have happened! Maybe I am just trying to figure out the initial conditions of a Hidden Markov Model with life's current visible outcome. It's kind of fun! And there is no fixed rule. And you would always end up with a different answer based on where you decide to stop! You could stop looking for answers at personal level or at an impersonal level. It's just fun!
However, apart from all these philosophical implications about life, I really wanted to learn a bit of science behind chaos theory. This is my 2nd attempt at this book almost 2 years later and the book is still uninteresting as it was before. I believe this is one of the most "overrated" books out there. The book is hugely popular, always comes at first when you are looking for recommendations about chaos theory books. So, first time I really had doubts about myself. I thought maybe I am not doing justice to this book. I still had my doubts this time. So, I spent substantial amount of my time behind this book. And I think I have done enough and cannot do anything more for this book.
This is not actually a science book on Chaos thoery, rather a scientific history book about people who worked on Chaos theory. Bits of biographies from here and there and merged in little chapters which actually don't tell you anything useful/ informative about the science of chaos theory. The book is not rigorous at all! And it's really a disappointment! That's it.
October 28, 2015
This book was a disappointment. The author spent too much time in repeating the same terminology and concepts like 'strange attractors' and 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions' and not enough time making it tangible by using real examples that would have made it more meaningful. For instance, what does chaos theory/nonlinear science mean for weather forecasting, predicting asset class returns, crime statistics, economic growth, timing of natural disasters? The author mentions these concepts but without going into lucid examples of what chaos theory implies for them. Because of this, I found the book frustrating - both too complex to really grasp, and too superficial to really provide useful insight into the concept.
In fairness, there was a long gap where I put this book down after having read the first half, so I recognize that I lost the continuity of the narrative. And maybe, just maybe (highly doubtful!!)I'm just not smart enough to get it. Still, a whole lot more could have been done to illustrate the application and implications of the subject. I also didn't care for the tone of the brief profiles of the various physicists and mathematicians - it felt like name-dropping to me.
The few things that kept being used as examples were the motion of water in a stream (fluid dynamics), or air tubulence. The most interesting chapters were the final two, about the possible application to physiology and then a summary of the concept. Maybe those should have been the first two chapters.
September 17, 2018
This was an interesting read. As much about the history of chaos theory and the scientists who pioneered it as the science itself. Contains the obligatory Jurassic Park references (in case you were worried).
July 14, 2014
The kind of book that just blows your mind with how cool it all is, and why doesn't anyone teach science like THIS. Because of this book, and the many delights that have followed, I am a lover of popular science writing. And also, I've learned way more than I ever did in school.
January 5, 2016
Wonderful, easy to understand book about what chaos is and how scientists came to understand it. I recommend viewing Robert Sapolsky's Stanford YouTube video lectures 21 & 22 on chaos and emergence & complexity before reading this book. Fractals are the most amazing things. You only get one life. Make sure learning about fractals is part of it. Such a thing of beauty.
March 16, 2022
For a ~34 year old popular science book, this held up surprisingly well. It avoided dating itself and was interesting throughout. I think anyone remotely curious in science and physics, and in particular topics like uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearities, etc. would enjoy.
I read the 20th anniversary edition. Another book rec name-dropped by someone (forget who) at #RWRI16.
I read the 20th anniversary edition. Another book rec name-dropped by someone (forget who) at #RWRI16.
May 14, 2022
**1/2 rounding up to 3.
Apparently this book made a big splash when it was first published. I remember the excitement around chaos theory and fractals at the time.
While I don't dislike history of science, it was not what I was expecting from this book. Thus I was disappointed that the focus was on a sequence of semi-biographies of the scientists as they discovered aspects of chaos. Admittedly it was rich in stories of key figures and their personalities, but lacking in a clear and concise explanation of chaos.
I also found it unstructured and confusing. Players show up in one chapter, abruptly disappear in the next, and sometimes reappear years (chapters) later. I never knew what was coming and how it was going to fit in to the whole.
The book could have benefited from a lecture style presentation, with clear chapter introductions and summaries, so that I could see how it all fit together, not to mention what year he was currently talking about. Frankly a visual Timeline would have done wonders.
All-in-all it reads like pop-science with constant over-the-top enthusiasm in place of a clear, concise, solid explanation of what chaos is.
Summary:
Simultaneously disappointing, chaotic, disorganized, but occasionally informative.
Read the 1 and 2 star reviews.
I'll be looking for a better book on this fascinating topic.
Apparently this book made a big splash when it was first published. I remember the excitement around chaos theory and fractals at the time.
While I don't dislike history of science, it was not what I was expecting from this book. Thus I was disappointed that the focus was on a sequence of semi-biographies of the scientists as they discovered aspects of chaos. Admittedly it was rich in stories of key figures and their personalities, but lacking in a clear and concise explanation of chaos.
I also found it unstructured and confusing. Players show up in one chapter, abruptly disappear in the next, and sometimes reappear years (chapters) later. I never knew what was coming and how it was going to fit in to the whole.
The book could have benefited from a lecture style presentation, with clear chapter introductions and summaries, so that I could see how it all fit together, not to mention what year he was currently talking about. Frankly a visual Timeline would have done wonders.
All-in-all it reads like pop-science with constant over-the-top enthusiasm in place of a clear, concise, solid explanation of what chaos is.
Summary:
Simultaneously disappointing, chaotic, disorganized, but occasionally informative.
Read the 1 and 2 star reviews.
I'll be looking for a better book on this fascinating topic.
February 9, 2019
When this book came out in the late 80s, I remember eating in the college cafeteria while my physics teacher and fellow students chatted about this mysterious thing called "chaos theory." When I finally picked up my own copy, I wished I'd read it sooner.
The mathemetics of chaos (and order) has literally remade our moder world. From weather prediction to materials production to medicine, there's not a realm of technology that hasn't changed with our new understandings of the patterns that connect us all.
Though a popular science book can only gloss a highly technical subject, Gleick does it well. But I found this book even more engaging for the narrative tale of a moment in history -- a virtual paradigm shift in mathematical thought -- that happened in our lifetimes. It's a case study in political factions and egos, sometimes cooperation and always wonder at seeing the world in a new way.
The mathemetics of chaos (and order) has literally remade our moder world. From weather prediction to materials production to medicine, there's not a realm of technology that hasn't changed with our new understandings of the patterns that connect us all.
Though a popular science book can only gloss a highly technical subject, Gleick does it well. But I found this book even more engaging for the narrative tale of a moment in history -- a virtual paradigm shift in mathematical thought -- that happened in our lifetimes. It's a case study in political factions and egos, sometimes cooperation and always wonder at seeing the world in a new way.
February 22, 2012
Awesome predictability of unpredictability, namely sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Wonderful bifurcations and pretty things abound... it'll make you realise why we'll never understand everything.
October 28, 2012
I read this a while ago but I can't remember it being a very spectacular or enjoyable read. Disclaimer: I took chaos mathematics at school so I was reasonably familiar with most presented concepts, which could have made it a little more boring.
June 14, 2020
This is how popular science books should be.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,587 reviews