4 ms·
The timeline should actually be hugely resilient to changes at smaller scales. Consider the world in terms of large numbers of probability distributions. When
by yarg 7y ago
The timeline should actually be hugely resilient to changes at smaller scales.
Consider the world in terms of large numbers of probability distributions.
When you combine distributions it's the variance and not the deviation that you add together.
I.e.: at larger scales the distribution of probabilistic variables tends toward the mean.
All that's left at smaller scales is quantum white noise.
- anyfoo 7y agoI think all that resolves to is that average temperature, mass/energy ratio, and other macroscopic values will be (roughly) the same. It says nothing about whether the same people will exist or not. Consider that simply one person not existing, or simply not procreating, means that the entire tree of descendants below them won't exist.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoBut a different tree of different people will exist in their place, and their contributions to the world are likely to be similar to the original peoples' too.
- yarg 7y agoSure, they won't be exactly the same - but give it 20 generations and there won't be a significant difference. The people will largely be genetically the same, the population and its distribution will be largely the same - they'll fit into the same ecological niche, they'll be inventing the same things and polluting the same rivers. There is potential for the butterfly effect to do something - the right change to an unstable equilibrium certainly has the potential to trigger a cascade of events. In general though, such events are highly improbable - and even dramatically cascading events will have their impacts dampened across time and space.
- agent008t 7y agoBut are people objectively as importantly unique as we subjectively perceive them to be?