4 ms·
> 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, frankl
by 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 agoBut 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.