In article <1203133165.303653@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Michael Ash <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Any thoughts on the above?
I don't think it has anything to do with a lottery. It really sounds
like that's just a plucked example from the position that time travel
*must* change the past. From a plot device standpoint, the question is
whether it changes history like a pebble in a stream, or more like a dam.
> It seems to me that a time traveler is going to have a better time in
> s****ts betting or the stock market. Both of these are chaotic to some
> extent but at least in the short term are based on more macroscopic
> effects. Small changes in the players' brains won't change the fact that
> team A's defense is helpless against team B's offense, or that company X
> is going to announce earnings 50% higher than predicted the next day.
The more interesting paradox that you miss is that the effect of small
changes of a lottery has a big ripple effect (turns $1 into $100 million
for one person) while a small change in a stock price has a small ripple
effect (turns $1 into maybe $2). But that only matters to someone
playing the game. When it comes to "proving" a timeline, if you assume
the physical laws of both scenarios are identical, it doesn't much
matter which way you go because the lottery winner will *still* change,
and that will further ripple to change the future in ways you cannot
predict.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com,
googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org
|
