3 ms·

I think it's a good question. Let's assume there is absolutely no animal nearby (tree branch makes a sound, slightly changing any animal's behavior, chain react

by anyfoo 7y ago

I think it's a good question. Let's assume there is absolutely no animal nearby (tree branch makes a sound, slightly changing any animal's behavior, chain reaction...), and let's further assume that the tiny air currents generated in this scenario do not only not cause a tornado as in the original butterfly effect (which, frankly, is not very likely), but are "buffered" enough that they don't create any change perceptible to any human at all. Then, overall, the makeup of the world is still different. Will this really never cause anyone to get a speck of dust in their eye that they otherwise wouldn't, flinching, preventing them from having the though "oh I have to buy milk" that they were about to have? I don't know... maybe it's just that some changes are indeed so tiny and remote that it takes them a long long time to have an effect, but once an obvious effect is present, I guess we're back to everything changing again?

hanoz 7y ago
> let's further assume that the tiny air currents generated in this scenario do not only not cause a tornado as in the original butterfly effect (which, frankly, is not very likely) You're underestimating the effect now. You only have to play about with a simple chaotic function and see how quickly the most infinitesimal change leads to utterly different results to appreciate that a butterfly flapping its wings sufficiently in advance literally alters the course of all subsequent tornados. If your home had a 99% chance of making it through tornado season unscathed one year but for the flap of a butterfly's wings, then it may still have a 99% chance, however it would be a completely new role of the dice.
- foldingmoney 7y ago
  But you're assuming the world is a chaotic function. Don't confuse the ability to add up tiny changes with those changes having a meaningful impact. You can dip your finger in a river and tell me how a bunch of molecules are displaced and then those molecules displace other molecules and so on in a way that wouldn't otherwise have happened. But for all intents and purposes, the river carries on in its original course as if nothing happened. It doesn't turn into a seething mass, it doesn't reverse course, it doesn't spiral off into infinity. Sensitivity to initial conditions is relatively rare, and even most chaotic functions only get interesting around certain values.

by anyfoo 7y ago

hanoz 7y ago

> let's further assume that the tiny air currents generated in this scenario do not only not cause a tornado as in the original butterfly effect (which, frankly, is not very likely) You're underestimating the effect now. You only have to play about with a simple chaotic function and see how quickly the most infinitesimal change leads to utterly different results to appreciate that a butterfly flapping its wings sufficiently in advance literally alters the course of all subsequent tornados. If your home had a 99% chance of making it through tornado season unscathed one year but for the flap of a butterfly's wings, then it may still have a 99% chance, however it would be a completely new role of the dice.

foldingmoney 7y ago
But you're assuming the world is a chaotic function. Don't confuse the ability to add up tiny changes with those changes having a meaningful impact. You can dip your finger in a river and tell me how a bunch of molecules are displaced and then those molecules displace other molecules and so on in a way that wouldn't otherwise have happened. But for all intents and purposes, the river carries on in its original course as if nothing happened. It doesn't turn into a seething mass, it doesn't reverse course, it doesn't spiral off into infinity. Sensitivity to initial conditions is relatively rare, and even most chaotic functions only get interesting around certain values.