3 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
Behaving unpredictably in a chaotic sense is not necessarily a problem. Just because you can't predict the exact value of a system doesn't mean it's destined for eventual catastrophe. Well designed systems just need to be able to handle a range of conditions.
Take the logistic map, a chaotic system whose exact value can't be reliably predicted far into the future. However, its value is always between 0 and 1. You don't need to worry about it suddenly becoming 73 or i or rutabaga. As long as you can handle all values between 0 and 1, the fact that it's chaotic is not an issue.
Comment by greenplasticman at 25/07/2014 at 18:17 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I think the metaphor with the park is like how your headphone cables will tangle in your backpack. There is one "good" condition. For the headphone it is untangled, for the park it is restrained dinos. Because these systems have only one desirable state, and as you can't return to that state once you leave, any change is undesirable.
Once you apply change, via motion, to the backpack, the cords will tangle, but they won't untangle. Once anything fails in the park (employee loyalty, power systems, weather, gender of the animals, etc.) the dinos will escape and reproduce and you can't get them back in their pens.
You are correct that a well designed system can handle a range of conditions. In the book, Hammond believes he is so smart and his system is perfect when he hasn't taken into account very basic errors in its design. His ego is the culprit.
You are also correct that chaos isn't necessarily a problem. Notice my original wording, the system appears to behave randomly. That is the key, chaos is an illusion of randomness.