Michael Ash skreiv:
> So I shall do that here. Is it actually reasonable to expect the
presence
> of a time traveler not to alter the outcome of a lottery drawing?
Lottery
> drawings are, or at leash should be, highly chaotic systems, in the
sense
> of being highly sensitive to initial conditions. The balls bounce all
over
> the place, and even the tiniest alteration to a single ball's trajectory
> will quickly balloon into a totally different result in the drawing.
Lottery-drawings are deliberately designed to be highly sensitive and
unstable, to make them unpredictable. I'm pretty sure that most
lottery-drawings are influence not only by the presence of a
time-travelller or not, but by much smaller stuff.
Including stuff that as far as we know is GENUINELY random. Even if two
atoms are in precisely the same state at precisely the same time and
recieve precisely the same stimuli, one of them may still spontaneuosly
split, and the other not.
There's enough atoms around that it's a *given* that several of the ones
that come into contact, directly or indirectly, with the lottery-drawing
will infact do differently.
So, put simply: I find it likely that even -without- the time-travveler
the results would be different.
4 hours of genuine randomness in the environment should cause enough
diversification that the result will be a different one.
Eivind Kjørstad
|
