This gets interesting. Found some interesting words:
Quote:
Chaos is sometimes viewed as extremely complicated information, rather than as an absence of order. The point is that chaos remains deterministic. With perfect knowledge of the initial conditions and of the context of an action, the course of this action can be predicted in chaos theory.
Complexity is non-deterministic, and gives no way whatsoever to precisely predict the future. The emergence of complexity theory shows a domain between deterministic order and randomness which is complex.
Complexity is the opposite of the study of chaos. Complexity is about how a huge number of extremely complicated and dynamic sets of relationships can generate some simple behavioural patterns, whereas chaotic behaviour, in the sense of deterministic chaos, is the result of a relatively small number of non-linear interactions.
Therefore, the main difference between chaotic systems and complex systems, is their history. Chaotic systems do not rely on their history as complex ones do. Complex systems evolve at a critical state built up by a history of irreversible and unexpected events. In a sense chaotic systems can be regarded as a subset of complex systems, distinguished precisely by this absence of historical dependence.
|
So, it appears most serious attempts at earthquake prediction, take more recognition of earthquakes as complex systems, rather than chaotic.
If this is the case, then even predictions citing ‘higher probabilities’ of impending large ‘aftershocks’, (ie: capable of generating tsunamis), would be a subset of the overall complexity and would thus, still be complete conjecture. There is just as much chance of there
not being large aftershocks.
Interesting .. this all depends on the modelling approach taken from the outset which again, is dependent on basic observational data taken over a given timeframe.
Cheers