There are several inaccuracies, simplifications, or misrepresentations in the discussion. Here's a breakdown of what's incorrect or misleading:
1. Mischaracterization of Chaos Theory and the Butterfly Effect
Claim: "A butterfly flapping its wings can create a hurricane many days later."
Issue:
This is a metaphor, not a literal claim, and it is often misunderstood. In Lorenz's original paper (1972), the phrasing was about sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The metaphor illustrates how tiny changes in a deterministic system can lead to vastly different outcomes—not that butterfly wings cause hurricanes, but that they can influence initial conditions in complex systems.
Clarification: Chaos theory doesn't say that small causes "create" large effects in a linear or causal way. Rather, in nonlinear systems, small changes in initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes because the system's future is highly sensitive to those initial conditions.
2. Inaccurate Description of Lorenz's Discovery
Claim: Lorenz reran the simulation with rounded-off numbers and the outcome was totally different due to truncation.
Issue:
Mostly accurate, but slightly simplified. Lorenz used a printout of intermediate values rounded to 3 decimal places, while the computer internally used six. When he restarted the simulation using the rounded values, the weather model diverged drastically. This divergence is emblematic of chaos, but it wasn't immediate—it developed gradually, which is a hallmark of deterministic chaos.
Clarification: The divergence demonstrated sensitive dependence on initial conditions within a deterministic system, not randomness or error.
3. Confusion Between Chaos and Randomness
Claim: "Quantum mechanics shows that matter behaves in ways that are potentially even completely random... therefore there’s a challenge to determinism."
Issue:
There is a conceptual confusion between chaos (deterministic unpredictability) and quantum indeterminacy (inherent randomness).
Clarification:
Chaos theory applies to deterministic systems and shows that unpredictability can arise even when the system is fully deterministic.
Quantum mechanics introduces fundamental probabilistic elements, especially under the Copenhagen interpretation, but this is conceptually distinct from chaos.
4. Overstatement of the “Delusion of Individualism”
Claim: “We can’t control things because the world is uncontrollable.”
Issue:
This is more of a philosophical extrapolation than a scientific conclusion. While chaos theory reveals limits to precise prediction, it does not imply total lack of control or agency.
Clarification: Humans can and do exert influence over many systems despite unpredictability. Chaos limits precision but doesn’t eliminate efficacy or agency.
5. Misrepresentation of Laplace’s Demon
Claim: “Before Newton... you wouldn’t be able to know where a ball would end up.”
Issue:
An oversimplification. Ancient and medieval thinkers had predictive models (e.g., Aristotle, Archimedes), though less accurate. The Laplace's Demon thought experiment comes after Newton, not before.
Clarification: Laplace’s Demon is a post-Newtonian hypothetical that assumes complete determinism: if an intellect knew all forces and positions at a given time, it could predict the entire future. It represents the ideal of determinism, which both chaos theory and quantum mechanics challenge.
Thank you for writing this! The article has so many confident oversimplifications and outright misinterpretations it was difficult to know where to start.
At least it's pretty clear it wasn't written by an AI!
This was an amazingly well-thought and reasoned response to this article. It really should be up to the publication to verify the claims but thank you for putting the time in to do so yourself!
Every day of life and person makes simple choices. Each choice puts uou in a new path. Often simple decisions takes you to a new situation where you make a new decision and so. Like suscribir to big think is the cause that I writing this comment. Overwhelmed years the sum of choices and aleatory experiences create a unique path that is unpredictable from the start point.
Control is an illusion; even worse, we are likely following a genetic program, which is impossible to control as well. Such that free will is also an illusion, or worse actually impossible as we all do essentially everything the same with regard to all activities which lead to continued life.
Fascinating. Chaos theory well introduced. Many who were raised in situations requiring situational and interpersonal awareness for safety and survival have inductive strengths that help them foresee potential consequences--a factor overlooked and often ignored or dismissed in such discussions: They literally foresee future consequences and even events. The "mass murder" reference was a bit confusing.
"A mass murder leads to this conversation." First time reader here. Does your history give a clue to your interest in chaos theory? Will follow out of mathematical & morbid curiosity.
Of course everything happens because of a web of causation reaching back to the beginning. Of course quantum uncertainty and our ignorance of causes means predicting the future is a gamble. However, we try to isolate an experimental system and control the inputs so we can measure probabilities of outcomes. The isolation and control are never complete. In particular, the scientist is part of the system. The unpredictability begins with the choice of problem, the design of the experiment and the interpretation of the result. Nevertheless, we can estimate the odds of future outcomes based on past experience. We should acknowledge the uncertainty.
Life is like an experiment. We can't know everything about our past or present, but we know some of our history and some of the immediate circumstances, here and now. So we can treat the self as a crudely isolated system and based on past experience, predict the odds of future outcomes. The freedom-determinacy confabulation is based on an equivocation fallacy. With the holistic perspective, which is not available, everything happens for a reason even if there is quantum uncertainty in the cause-effect chain. With the discrete perspective of a controlled system, even poorly controlled, we can attribute effects to local causes with some probability. So we continue to check the past and plan for the future. Determinism is global. Freedom is local. That said, some local version of determinism helps in making choices. Listen to your mother.
More to say. Free choice and determinism are ideas, which means they are real in the sense of being states of a neural network. Also both are potentially causes with effects. Determinism is an objective holistic worldview that places every discrete thing in a dense cause-effect web. From that perspective, freedom is illusory. Choice has meaning within a subjective local discrete worldview within which we see options for our action and are free to choose. So absolute control is illusory. We change fluidly from one perspective to the other, and get confused about meanings of words we use to describe the situation we are in. The objective view is useful, because we become aware of factors affecting choices and may alter circumstances so that we make better choices. The judge may rule life in prison or recess for lunch rather than decide when she is hungry. Our belief about freedom and control is one of the inputs into making a choice. If we believe we don't have a choice, why worry; party on. If we believe we have a choice, we might put some time, calories and thought into getting it right. Beliefs may be illusions but they are real, states of mind with real affects. If you believe that a metal disk has value and can be traded for a donut you may get to eat a donut, or a muffin, your choice.
I read Brian Klaas’s piece on chaos theory and the delusion of individual control. It’s thoughtful. Precise. He draws on Lorenz, quantum unpredictability, and the butterfly effect to explain how the world doesn’t work the way we assume it does.
But here’s what I felt reading it:
We already knew that — if we’ve ever surrendered.
The lessons life has handed me would’ve crushed most people. That’s not a boast. That’s not even a story about me. It’s about the Light I walk with. If I’ve stood, it’s because I was held. If I’ve loved, it’s because I was loved first. That’s it. Jesus met me in that mystery space — where the logic of control breaks down, and grace takes over.
Klaas talks about randomness and unpredictability, and from a worldly standpoint, he’s right. But what he’s describing as chaos, I’ve come to see as divine orchestration. It’s just not always visible in real time. The power of surrender is that it connects you — not to control, but to the One who sees beyond what you can.
We’re not linear creatures. Impact isn’t math. George Floyd’s stillness under oppression shook the world louder than a thousand actions. That’s what I mean when I say impact is qualitative, not quantitative. The smallest act, the stillest moment, can ripple through the fabric of time. That’s the “butterfly effect” in spiritual form.
We tend to judge by outcomes. But Jesus looks at obedience. And obedience often starts where control ends.
Most of what people say doesn’t align with what they do. But in between speech and action is the heart — and that’s where I believe the Spirit moves. That’s the level chaos theory can’t touch. That’s the level where Jesus operates.
So no, I don’t think the illusion of control is a mistake. I think it’s a mercy — a reminder that we were never meant to carry the weight of the world. And when we try, we break.
That’s why I follow the Potter. Not because I understand all His ways, but because I trust that He sees the shape I can’t. And if I ever feel tempted to ask, “Why have You made me like this?” — I remember that the clay doesn’t ask. It yields. And in yielding, it’s formed.
So no, I’m not here to glorify control. I’m here to glorify the One who makes surrender powerful.
Literally no-one believes they have total control even over themselves, let alone anything else in the world, so the starting premise of this video is nonsense.
One of the most transformative ideas I’ve had in recent years is that nothing can exist unless it has been caused. That is, there can be no first cause, no uncaused cause; no ex-nihilo event, no possibility of something coming from nothing. As Parmenides said 2,500 years ago, “Ex nihilo nihil fit” (Out of nothing comes from nothing.)
Consider this syllogism:
p1 - For something to exist, it must be caused.
p2 - The universe (or fill in the blank) exists
C- Therefore, the universe (or the blank) was caused.
I see the universe as the result of a series of causes and effects in an open system, most of which are nonlinear, multifarious, complex, highly chaotic, and virtually incalculable. That means we live in a deterministic world. But the extent and complexity of all the causes and effect since, and probably before the Big Bang or whatever produced the universe as we know it, are mostly unknowable. Those we do know about are merely small slices along the arrow of time. Those who say, “everything happens for a reason” can also mean “everything has a cause.” This also says there is no bad luck, no randomness, no misfortune, no free will.
I believe causation also happens at the quantum level. Physicist Lawrence M. Krauss disagrees in his 2012 book. “A Universe From Nothing - Why is There is Something Rather Than Nothing.” He drills down into the depths of quantum mechanics and talks about things like virtual particles and vacuum states. He assumes those come from nothing. But that conclusion, in turn, requires perfect knowledge which none of us have, even Dr. Krauss. Consider Richard Feynman’s famous quote, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
The author is right. The individual ability to control anything is a delusion. Our world is a paradox that relies on an infinite regression of causes and effects moving into the future.
There are several inaccuracies, simplifications, or misrepresentations in the discussion. Here's a breakdown of what's incorrect or misleading:
1. Mischaracterization of Chaos Theory and the Butterfly Effect
Claim: "A butterfly flapping its wings can create a hurricane many days later."
Issue:
This is a metaphor, not a literal claim, and it is often misunderstood. In Lorenz's original paper (1972), the phrasing was about sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The metaphor illustrates how tiny changes in a deterministic system can lead to vastly different outcomes—not that butterfly wings cause hurricanes, but that they can influence initial conditions in complex systems.
Clarification: Chaos theory doesn't say that small causes "create" large effects in a linear or causal way. Rather, in nonlinear systems, small changes in initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes because the system's future is highly sensitive to those initial conditions.
2. Inaccurate Description of Lorenz's Discovery
Claim: Lorenz reran the simulation with rounded-off numbers and the outcome was totally different due to truncation.
Issue:
Mostly accurate, but slightly simplified. Lorenz used a printout of intermediate values rounded to 3 decimal places, while the computer internally used six. When he restarted the simulation using the rounded values, the weather model diverged drastically. This divergence is emblematic of chaos, but it wasn't immediate—it developed gradually, which is a hallmark of deterministic chaos.
Clarification: The divergence demonstrated sensitive dependence on initial conditions within a deterministic system, not randomness or error.
3. Confusion Between Chaos and Randomness
Claim: "Quantum mechanics shows that matter behaves in ways that are potentially even completely random... therefore there’s a challenge to determinism."
Issue:
There is a conceptual confusion between chaos (deterministic unpredictability) and quantum indeterminacy (inherent randomness).
Clarification:
Chaos theory applies to deterministic systems and shows that unpredictability can arise even when the system is fully deterministic.
Quantum mechanics introduces fundamental probabilistic elements, especially under the Copenhagen interpretation, but this is conceptually distinct from chaos.
4. Overstatement of the “Delusion of Individualism”
Claim: “We can’t control things because the world is uncontrollable.”
Issue:
This is more of a philosophical extrapolation than a scientific conclusion. While chaos theory reveals limits to precise prediction, it does not imply total lack of control or agency.
Clarification: Humans can and do exert influence over many systems despite unpredictability. Chaos limits precision but doesn’t eliminate efficacy or agency.
5. Misrepresentation of Laplace’s Demon
Claim: “Before Newton... you wouldn’t be able to know where a ball would end up.”
Issue:
An oversimplification. Ancient and medieval thinkers had predictive models (e.g., Aristotle, Archimedes), though less accurate. The Laplace's Demon thought experiment comes after Newton, not before.
Clarification: Laplace’s Demon is a post-Newtonian hypothetical that assumes complete determinism: if an intellect knew all forces and positions at a given time, it could predict the entire future. It represents the ideal of determinism, which both chaos theory and quantum mechanics challenge.
(GPT4o)
Thank you for writing this! The article has so many confident oversimplifications and outright misinterpretations it was difficult to know where to start.
At least it's pretty clear it wasn't written by an AI!
This was an amazingly well-thought and reasoned response to this article. It really should be up to the publication to verify the claims but thank you for putting the time in to do so yourself!
Every day of life and person makes simple choices. Each choice puts uou in a new path. Often simple decisions takes you to a new situation where you make a new decision and so. Like suscribir to big think is the cause that I writing this comment. Overwhelmed years the sum of choices and aleatory experiences create a unique path that is unpredictable from the start point.
Control is an illusion; even worse, we are likely following a genetic program, which is impossible to control as well. Such that free will is also an illusion, or worse actually impossible as we all do essentially everything the same with regard to all activities which lead to continued life.
You should stay out of naive religious beliefs. Stick to science
Fascinating. Chaos theory well introduced. Many who were raised in situations requiring situational and interpersonal awareness for safety and survival have inductive strengths that help them foresee potential consequences--a factor overlooked and often ignored or dismissed in such discussions: They literally foresee future consequences and even events. The "mass murder" reference was a bit confusing.
You have to read Klaas's book to understand this reference.
Yes, that "mass murder" reference made me wonder if this clip was taken from a longer piece with some personal anecdote in it.
Yes, it seemed to come out of nowhere. Likely overlooked during the final edit.
"A mass murder leads to this conversation." First time reader here. Does your history give a clue to your interest in chaos theory? Will follow out of mathematical & morbid curiosity.
Of course everything happens because of a web of causation reaching back to the beginning. Of course quantum uncertainty and our ignorance of causes means predicting the future is a gamble. However, we try to isolate an experimental system and control the inputs so we can measure probabilities of outcomes. The isolation and control are never complete. In particular, the scientist is part of the system. The unpredictability begins with the choice of problem, the design of the experiment and the interpretation of the result. Nevertheless, we can estimate the odds of future outcomes based on past experience. We should acknowledge the uncertainty.
Life is like an experiment. We can't know everything about our past or present, but we know some of our history and some of the immediate circumstances, here and now. So we can treat the self as a crudely isolated system and based on past experience, predict the odds of future outcomes. The freedom-determinacy confabulation is based on an equivocation fallacy. With the holistic perspective, which is not available, everything happens for a reason even if there is quantum uncertainty in the cause-effect chain. With the discrete perspective of a controlled system, even poorly controlled, we can attribute effects to local causes with some probability. So we continue to check the past and plan for the future. Determinism is global. Freedom is local. That said, some local version of determinism helps in making choices. Listen to your mother.
More to say. Free choice and determinism are ideas, which means they are real in the sense of being states of a neural network. Also both are potentially causes with effects. Determinism is an objective holistic worldview that places every discrete thing in a dense cause-effect web. From that perspective, freedom is illusory. Choice has meaning within a subjective local discrete worldview within which we see options for our action and are free to choose. So absolute control is illusory. We change fluidly from one perspective to the other, and get confused about meanings of words we use to describe the situation we are in. The objective view is useful, because we become aware of factors affecting choices and may alter circumstances so that we make better choices. The judge may rule life in prison or recess for lunch rather than decide when she is hungry. Our belief about freedom and control is one of the inputs into making a choice. If we believe we don't have a choice, why worry; party on. If we believe we have a choice, we might put some time, calories and thought into getting it right. Beliefs may be illusions but they are real, states of mind with real affects. If you believe that a metal disk has value and can be traded for a donut you may get to eat a donut, or a muffin, your choice.
I think the belief in individual "control," even if overestimated, results in EMPOWERING Individuals to accomplish MORE that they likely might have.
Even if... it's somewhat delusional...it does serve a positive purpose.
I read Brian Klaas’s piece on chaos theory and the delusion of individual control. It’s thoughtful. Precise. He draws on Lorenz, quantum unpredictability, and the butterfly effect to explain how the world doesn’t work the way we assume it does.
But here’s what I felt reading it:
We already knew that — if we’ve ever surrendered.
The lessons life has handed me would’ve crushed most people. That’s not a boast. That’s not even a story about me. It’s about the Light I walk with. If I’ve stood, it’s because I was held. If I’ve loved, it’s because I was loved first. That’s it. Jesus met me in that mystery space — where the logic of control breaks down, and grace takes over.
Klaas talks about randomness and unpredictability, and from a worldly standpoint, he’s right. But what he’s describing as chaos, I’ve come to see as divine orchestration. It’s just not always visible in real time. The power of surrender is that it connects you — not to control, but to the One who sees beyond what you can.
We’re not linear creatures. Impact isn’t math. George Floyd’s stillness under oppression shook the world louder than a thousand actions. That’s what I mean when I say impact is qualitative, not quantitative. The smallest act, the stillest moment, can ripple through the fabric of time. That’s the “butterfly effect” in spiritual form.
We tend to judge by outcomes. But Jesus looks at obedience. And obedience often starts where control ends.
Most of what people say doesn’t align with what they do. But in between speech and action is the heart — and that’s where I believe the Spirit moves. That’s the level chaos theory can’t touch. That’s the level where Jesus operates.
So no, I don’t think the illusion of control is a mistake. I think it’s a mercy — a reminder that we were never meant to carry the weight of the world. And when we try, we break.
That’s why I follow the Potter. Not because I understand all His ways, but because I trust that He sees the shape I can’t. And if I ever feel tempted to ask, “Why have You made me like this?” — I remember that the clay doesn’t ask. It yields. And in yielding, it’s formed.
So no, I’m not here to glorify control. I’m here to glorify the One who makes surrender powerful.
Pre Newton people had a pretty good idea of where a thrown object would end up.
Literally no-one believes they have total control even over themselves, let alone anything else in the world, so the starting premise of this video is nonsense.
One of the most transformative ideas I’ve had in recent years is that nothing can exist unless it has been caused. That is, there can be no first cause, no uncaused cause; no ex-nihilo event, no possibility of something coming from nothing. As Parmenides said 2,500 years ago, “Ex nihilo nihil fit” (Out of nothing comes from nothing.)
Consider this syllogism:
p1 - For something to exist, it must be caused.
p2 - The universe (or fill in the blank) exists
C- Therefore, the universe (or the blank) was caused.
I see the universe as the result of a series of causes and effects in an open system, most of which are nonlinear, multifarious, complex, highly chaotic, and virtually incalculable. That means we live in a deterministic world. But the extent and complexity of all the causes and effect since, and probably before the Big Bang or whatever produced the universe as we know it, are mostly unknowable. Those we do know about are merely small slices along the arrow of time. Those who say, “everything happens for a reason” can also mean “everything has a cause.” This also says there is no bad luck, no randomness, no misfortune, no free will.
I believe causation also happens at the quantum level. Physicist Lawrence M. Krauss disagrees in his 2012 book. “A Universe From Nothing - Why is There is Something Rather Than Nothing.” He drills down into the depths of quantum mechanics and talks about things like virtual particles and vacuum states. He assumes those come from nothing. But that conclusion, in turn, requires perfect knowledge which none of us have, even Dr. Krauss. Consider Richard Feynman’s famous quote, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
The author is right. The individual ability to control anything is a delusion. Our world is a paradox that relies on an infinite regression of causes and effects moving into the future.
But you cannot prove premise 1.
I knew you were going to say all this. So, watch yer step!
So we can have partial or imperfect control...
Quantum phenomena are not *random*, they are *indeterminate*! There is a difference...