Of Lorenz's Chaotic Butterflies and Singapore

Obituary: Edward Lorenz; Pioneer in Creation of Chaos Theory (1917-2008)

By Patricia SullivanWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, April 17, 2008; B07

Edward N. Lorenz, 90, a meteorologist who laid the groundwork for chaos theory, memorably asking whether the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas, died of cancer April 16 at his home in Cambridge, Mass. He was an emeritus professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

At MIT, Dr. Lorenz accidentally discovered how small differences in the early stages of a dynamic system, such as the weather, can trigger such huge changes in later stages that the result is unpredictable and essentially random.

At the time, Dr. Lorenz was studying why it's so hard to accurately forecast the weather, but the implications of his work go far beyond meteorology.

The new science of chaos fundamentally changed the way researchers address topics from the geometry of snowflakes to the predictability of which movies will become blockbusters. The butterfly effect became a popular way of describing unpredictability, most recently in "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006), the Academy Award-winning documentary with former Vice President Al Gore.

It also "brought about one of the most dramatic changes in mankind's view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton," said the committee that awarded Dr. Lorenz the 1991 Kyoto Prize for basic sciences.

Yet Dr. Lorenz's 1962 paper on chaos theory was largely ignored for years. A decade later, when he gave a talk about predictability, with a title asking the famous butterfly question, the scientific establishment was ready to consider the idea. Other scientists who had been working on similar questions swarmed to the field, and one by one, certain assumptions of science began to falter.

"When I first heard this [butterfly effect] idea, I thought it very clever but it couldn't be literally true," said James Gleick, a science writer and author of "Chaos: Making a New Science" (1987), which explored Dr. Lorenz's work. "But it is literally true. . . . Complex dynamical systems, if they are chaotic, never repeat themselves. They are capable of an infinite variety of behavior."
This means that simple systems can result in complex behavior and that the slightest change in underlying causes can make the result unpredictable.

Chaos theory -- also known as the science of nonlinearity, the science of complexity, the science of random recurrent behavior or the science of turbulence and discord -- has thus been called the third great scientific revolution of the 20th century, along with relativity and quantum physics.

Edward Norton Lorenz was born May 23, 1917, in West Hartford, Conn., and graduated from Dartmouth College. He received a master's degree in mathematics in 1940 from Harvard University and served as a weather forecaster for the Army Air Forces during World War II.
In 1948, he received a doctorate in meteorology from MIT and joined its faculty. He remained there the rest of his career.

In 1961, he was using a primitive computer to model weather forecasts, which led to his most renowned work.

Using 12 equations, such as the relationship between air pressure and wind speed, he ran the model and found exactly what he sought. But taking a shortcut on the next run, he found that a tiny decimal point change led to a significant error.

Rather than ignore the response, which peers had considered an anomaly, Dr. Lorenz realized measurement is not perfect. If temperature, pressure or humidity measurements were off by a hundredth of a percent, the rainfall he expected in Las Vegas on Thursday could show up as a snowstorm in Beijing a week later. A computerized model of how the "butterfly effect" works can be found at the Exploratorium's Web site.

"He had the ability to make important connections between atmospheric phenomena and simple theoretical models," said Isaac Held, senior research scientist in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. "He taught us that complexity can follow from very simple underlying rules. His study of the limits to the predictability of weather initiated an entire new field of chaotic dynamics."

Dr. Lorenz was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1975, and in 1983, he and oceanographer Henry Stommel were jointly awarded the $50,000 Crafoord Prize by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, an honor established to recognize fields not eligible for Nobel Prizes.

Dr. Lorenz was known as shy and humble. He enjoyed hiking and cross-country skiing and sought out mountain trails near every scientific meeting he attended, one of his daughters said.
His wife, Jane Logan Lorenz, died in 2001.

Survivors include three children, Nancy Lorenz of Roslindale, Mass., Edward Lorenz of Grasse, France, and Cheryl Lorenz of Eugene, Ore.; and four grandchildren.Chaos theory helped shape Dr. Lorenz's conclusions as he worked to calculate long-term forecasts. Given the problems of input, the meteorologist determined that it's impossible to accurately predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy

My comments:

Hi friends,

Let me first confess that I was a poor student of Physics.

I was so poor in Physics that I asked to downgrade my Physics from A Levels to AO levels whilst in junior college many moons ago. I found that I had very little clue what the A levels physics lecturer was talking about and the textbook (Nelkon, I think it was) was too heavy to lug around!

Anyway, I was already too busy with the Student Council ( for which I was in charge of students’ lockers) ,being secretary of the photographic club ( which allowed me to move around pretending to take pictures whilst the rest of the college was standing in formation) , and being in the track & field team ( and you know how poor NJC was then and we had to go across to Hwa Chong to borrow their track!). I had no time to do four A levels (and of course I gave the S-papers the miss too)!

As it turned out, it seems that I made the right decision as having less than four A levels was no impediment to my being admitted into the university. My extracurricular activities probably impressed the interview board! Or maybe they just wanted to give this poor boy a chance in life ( and I am grateful for that).

Enough about myself.

I cannot remember why I was fascinated about Lorenz’s Chaos theory and its related Butterfly effect, but I was. I guess it is always intriguing to think that an action as insignificant as a butterfly’s flapping can lead to catastrophic earth-shattering events the other side of the world.

How one sees the world will affect one’s daily behaviour. If one is a fatalist ( or what Rotter classifies as External locus of control), then don’t bother. Just do what you have been doing and as everything has been pre-determined already, you should just let the powers that be ( eg Providence/ Political leaders etc) run your lives. (Read my post on Locus of control-Are you ready for change?).

But if you are like me who feel that one’s destiny lies in our own hands and that we are the only ones who should decide what kind of life we want (Rotter’s Internal Locus of control), then perhaps we should be more pro-active. When each of us makes an effort to speak up for injustices around us or remind the establishment that not everyone is happy as they are, then each small action will lead to other perhaps larger reactions which eventually lead to the Tornado Lorenz referred to.

So are you prepared to flap your wings, my little butterflies?

Cheers

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

References:

1. Chaos Theory

2. Butterfly Effect

Are you ready for change: What’s your Locus of Control score?

Hi Friends,

Recently I had some opportunities to do psychometric tests. One of these is the Rotter’s Locus of Control scale.

Locus of Control:

Locus of control refers to how individuals attribute responsibilities for events that happen to their lives. In simple terms, do we feel that most things that happen to us are beyond our control? That our social structure or our office hierarchy are so fixed and entrenched that nothing we do can meaningfully change or improve it? That if the government says there should be an ERP gantry on every street, we just have to take it or leave it(ie migrate) ?

Or are you someone who feels that “Impossible is nothing” ( to borrow a commercial slogan) and that if there is a will, there is a way? That the journey of a thousand miles start with the first step? (OK enough of cliches)

Generally, common sense tells us that there are factors both within and without our controls. The "within's" include one’s abilities; efforts and the "without's" fate; luck and powerful others (eg politicians; business billionaires).

People who believe that destiny lies within their own hands are deemed as having Internal Locus of Control whilst those who perceive that factors extrinsic to themselves determine their personal outcomes have External Locus of Control.

A person’s locus of control could have developed from Accumulative causes (eg childhood upbringing; social deprivation) or Episodic causes such as life-changing events like near-death experiences such as accidents or natural disasters.

Are you ready to face the facts and find out your score? Are you are an “internal” or an “external”? Be honest.

I may reveal my score later as a comment.

Best wishes and Gong Xi Fa Cai!

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

PS: I just got my 100000th hit the past few days! ( and I was not hitting this blog myself!)

THE TEST

Rotter's Locus of Control Scale ( Choose a or b for each of the following questions)

1. a. Children get into trouble because their patents punish them too much.
b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them.

2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.
b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.

3. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough
interest in politics.
b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.

4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world
b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries

5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings.

6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
b. Capable people who fail to become leaders hive not taken advantage of their opportunities.

7. a. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you.
b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with others.

8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality
b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like.

9. a. I have often found tlint what is going to happen will happen.
b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action.

10. a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such.a thing as an unfair test.
b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying in really useless.

11. a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, hick has little or nothing to do with it.
b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the. right time.

12. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.
b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it.

13. a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to- be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.

14. a. There are certain people who are just no good.
b. There is some good in everybody.

15. a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.

16. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it.

17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand, nor control.
b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world events.

18. a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings.
b. There really is no such thing as "luck."

19. a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.

20. a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
b. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are.

21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones.
b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three.

22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office.

23. a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give.
b. There is a direct connection between how hard 1 study and the grades I get.

24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.

25. a. Many times 1 feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life.

26. a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you.

27. a. There is too much enphasis on athletics in high school.
b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.

28. a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking.

29. a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do.
b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well as on a local level.

Score one point for each of the following:
2.a, 3.b, 4.b, 5.b, 6.a, 7.a, 9.a, 10.b, 11.b, 12.b, 13.b, 15.b, 16.a, 17.a, 18.a, 20.a,
21.a, 22.b, 23.a, 25.a, 26.b, 28.b, 29.a.

A high score = External Locus of Control
A low score = Internal Locus of Control

Locus of Control

Locus of Control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine events. Those with a high internal locus of control have better control of their behaviour and tend to exhibit more political behaviors than externals and are more likely to attempt to influence other people; they are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They are more active in seeking information and knowledge concerning their situation than do externals.The propensity to engage in political behavior is stronger for individuals who have a high internal locus of control than for those who have a high external locus of control.

Links to:
Locus of control


PS: By the Way, My score is 0 (Zero). That means I have strong internal locus of control. That means I always try to change things and will not accept that everything needs be the same.