Nozick and Chaos

When we were discussing Nozick’s entitlement theory, I found the idea of repeatedly applying the initial conditions for just holdings – as in the Wilt Chamberlain problem – a particularly intriguing method of underscoring the fallacy that plagues nearly all patterned systems of distribution. Namely, that end state principals are corrupted by voluntary action, whereas the entitlement theory embraces such changes. The interesting thing is that Nozick’s predilection for initial conditions is something that is reminiscent of the mathematics that underlies the chaos theory. And while the comparison leaves much to want, a loose juxtaposition between the mathematics and the philosophy does provide some insight as to why initial conditions can be so important in natural systems.

Chaos theory has become a science which studies deterministic systems sensitive to initial conditions. Yes, this is the theory that caused Jurassic Park to close, made a few other less exciting movies, and created the saying ‘the flap of a butterfly’s wings in New York could cause a hurricane in Tokyo.’ However, it is also the reason why we cannot predict the weather much more than a week in advance or predict how water might drip from a faucet. For example, up until the early 1960’s it was believed that with a near infinite number of weather sensors covering the earth would enable one to predict the weather several months or a year in advance. But given such a system, no number of sensors would work because each measurement necessarily overlooks small amounts of information until the numbers driving the system produce a model drastically different from the real thing.

More importantly however, chaotic systems emerge not only on the terms of mathematical equations but also in the context of space and time. As their permutations grow and expand, the outputs become more complex and unpredictable. In a similar fashion, Nozick’s balancing of justice on initial conditions produces a system that does not attempt to control free will, but the ultimate success of this construct is largely left to chance (as long as the movements are just of course). In this way it is apparent that the manner in which the initial holdings are arranged becomes totally occluded by chance and time. Thus the question becomes: Do you wish to have a system where equality is ultimately decided by natural interactions, or would you prefer a mode of organization that imposes upon human will a pattern of distribution? Political ideologies aside, which do you think is more rational?