Talk:Chaos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Systems This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles about the idea of systems. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high importance within Systems.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chaos article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


Contents

[edit] Sonic the Hedgehog

I deleted the part about Chaos being a character in the Sonic the Hedgehog video game and a character in Sesame Park. I don't think these pieces of information are neccesary in an article about a mythological concept... If any of you think I was wrong to do this, then put it back in.

Wikipedia does not do your homework for you. Besides, there's a place for research-related questions; this is not it. Fennec 23:26, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Do not focus on Chaos in your speech. Chaos was more of an abstract entity in ancient Greek religion -- little is known about him because he was not actively worshipped, took part in no stories apart from the creation and had no personal identity. The supreme god in ancient Greece was Zeus, who is more closely analogous to the Christian God than Chaos. Tuf-Kat 23:29, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] truth v fiction

I'd like to know how you classify what is 'truth' and what is 'fiction'. After all, "Chaos, an apocalyptic rider in the Discworld book series by Terry Pratchett" is no less real than "Chaos (also 'Khaos'), the primordial substance from which the universe sprang in Greek mythology." and "Chaos: Making A New Science, a non-fiction book by James Gleick." is no more real than "Chaos, a video game for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum and Atari ST." Please clarify the way you have categorised what is fact and fiction please. Thanks :) Zikar 09:08 31st December GMT

[edit] Xaos

What should be done if I'm looking to add an entry on "Xaos", (the name of a multiplayer RPI Mud, since the present "Xaos" entry redirects to "Chaos"?

I mean, I'm not sure where to put referrence to Xaos. In the "chaos disambiguation"? In a new disambiguation for the word Xaos? Or should I just get rid of the redirect (despite the fact that Xaos is, of course, something with a smaller audience than the concept of chaos (even the mispelled concept) would have)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tchalvak (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

I'd suggest creating a new artical called "Xaos_(MUD)" or somthing then add that page into the media or other section is this artical. Zikar 21:25 24th Jan 2005
so chaos is like man vs himself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jebus96ae (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Bible

I think the statement on the Bible should be revised. If it's referring to the creation story in Genesis, the Bible says the Earth was "without form and void" (tohu wa bohu). It's a similar idea but I don't think the Bible ever uses the term Chaos, at least not in Genesis itself (for obvious reasons). --Jordansc 06:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

The Chaos Faction section should be deleted. There's no discussion of how they relate to the concept of chaos - it's just their name. Topics with the name chaos but no reference to the concept should have their own articles and be included in the disambiguation page.

The Chaos and Fate section and the paragraph on Robin Hood and chaos are both unsourced opinions and should either be cited or deleted.

I also think we should add a section on Chaos in fiction and popular culture. Jordansc 10:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of merging Chaos (mythology) and Chaos since there were some requests. It seems to me that a number of views on Chaos should be given short sections and links back to their respective main pages: Chaos magic and Michael Moorcock's chaos (since both are on the links page already anyway), Hakim Bey's thoughts on Chaos, Chaos in the Warhammer universes, Lovecraft's Azathoth. --Jordansc 06:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Association test

Could you help me in a linguistic study? Please, write what you associate with the words "chaos" and "order". Thank you!

I would associate Choas with data whereby there is no easily noticible pattern. Tetrahedron93 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics rewrite - remove tag?

The Physics section contained apparently improvised fluff, so I rewrote it as an attempt to clarify the relationship between chaos and thermodynamic entropy. Since I don't consider myself an expert in this subject, I left in the "expert attention needed" tag. If you have a degree in physics and feel this is a quality write-up, please remove the tag. --67.171.130.47 07:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would separate the article as the physics of chaos and the mythology of chaos are incredibly different or we could just direct it to chaos theory. I'm in favour of adding it to the chaos theory article. Evildoctorcow 07:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should be removed form the chaos article, for it has nothing to do with the religious meaning of "chaos"

I've removed the part about chaos being like thermodynamic entropy. It isn't. I should know; I'm a junior physics major at the University of Rochester. I don't have a wikipedia account, but someone needs to delete the article titled "Chaos (Physics)" since this is redundant with the article "Chaos Theory" (Chaos in physics and chaos theory are the same thing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.123.191 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Just to start this dialog by clearing up a question, was this edit one of yours, or was that some other user at your IP? — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 13:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War Child

War child is the godess of chaos and distruction....

[edit] disorder?

Due to people misunderstanding early Christian uses of the word, the meaning of the word changed to "disorder". What people and when? Are we talking about the meaning of the English word Chaos (which the article is about), or the meaning of Χάος? Should there be more support for this statement here? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 06:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, using the word "Christian" is extremely pointed. Were the uses explicitly Christian, or were they merely a Christian people? In the latter case, refer to the uses by the people not their beliefs. In both cases, I would argue that there needs to be more support for this statement. MrHen 21:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ovid

Can we get a source on the Ovid translation used on this page? They should be credited. Jordansc 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics or Philosophy?

My viewpoint is that the two articles contain more Philosophy than Science. I would suggest to merge "Chaos (physics)" into "Chaos" and to change the title of the resulting article to "Chaos (philosophy)". 3p1416 10:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

oh, please. physical "chaos" is absolutely different from the philosophical / mythical term in that it only borrows the general idea and thus uses chaos as a kind of metaphor. what is lacking here is a good disambiguation page. nothing more, nothing less. -- Kku 10:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Merger

The word 'chaos' was misappropriated by physics/mathematics. Its use by them is at best misleading, but most accurately described as corrupting. In many ways chaos is the antithesis of the world described by physics and mathematics. Please keep them separate - they mean different things. Creating a Chaos (philosophy) and a Chaos (physics) would be an alternative; but for sake of clarity the descrepencies and distinctions between the two usages of the word should be made apparent in each. BillSmart 10:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of a merger depends on how much overlap there's going to be with Chaos theory; if all the bulk goes in there, there seems little point in having the current Chaos (physics) as a separate article, and it would serve as well as a small subsection at Chaos. If they're both going to be expanded in their own right, then they deserve to be separate. I think that's the key issue here.
Whether they merge or not though, I suggest classical chaos simply be referred to as Chaos, and chaos of mathematics and physics as Deterministic chaos, which presently links to Chaos theory. That seems much more sensible than suffixing (physics) or (maths) everywhere. Spiral Wave 19:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion?

I'm not sure what purpose this page fills. There's a definiton of Chaos that should be in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia and there's a pointer to Chaos physics. Maybe we should just delete this and leave it up to the disambiguation page to serve its purpose? Jordansc 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree this page does not need to exist but it would be nice to have a page titled chaos that linked to all the other chaos types with just a brief description of what each was. Is that what a disambiguation page does. Mark 09:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jordan; this page is essentially a disambiguation right now, and all it really does is link to the official disambig. Seems like extra baggage. — Joun 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.202.188 (talk)

You vulgarisms! In good faith, this page is a piece of vulgarism as well as those who wrote it. Anyway, it is a good idea to merge chaos into one article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.129.151.35 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

Please do not interpret this comment as intending to distract or otherwise detract from the quality of this talk page, but I can't resist commenting on the irony of the "Chaos" article being one of the most "chaotically" edited. I hope someone else can appreciate this irony as much as I can, thank you Finn zee Fox (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Since we're on the subject...

Not going to be much here, just thought I'd throw in some views I've developed over time that I think would be appropriate here.

As far as the "Chaos Theory" being merged with the "Chaos Mythology," I think that a disambiguation link from one topic to the other would be a good idea, and maybe the best course of action to solve this riddle.

As far as Chao Theory being inaccurate or, in a bit harsher terms, a corruption, I think there is something which needs to be taken into account. The term Chaos is part of a language (in this case, English), and is, therefore, open to changing, adapting, and, as in some other linguistic examples (i.e. jerk, cool, wicked, etc.), a complete rewrite as to its meaning. As far as I can tell, from what layperson perspective I have gained over the years, Chaos (as a theory) is a term coined by, and this is debatable, Edward N. Lorenz, aong with the term "The Butterfly Effect" at a conference in the late '70s. Chaos, now, because of a number of factors including, though not at all limited to, media hype and the fact that it just sounds cool, has become the staple term used to refer to the lack of perioicity in some mathematical systems (i.e. global weather patterns, the waving of a flag in the wind, the rising of smoke from a fire, etc). Therefore, we, as (hopefully) fluent users of the English language should recognize its new status as said definition, as well as its previous meanings of... All those things discussed above this comment.

Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind. Keep up the good work, and remember to take things here with a grain of salt until you verify what you've read. Not to get off-topic or anything.

64.1.244.219 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)