In article <1203276894.857769@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Michael Ash <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> > From a plot device standpoint, the question is
> >> > whether it changes history like a pebble in a stream, or more like
a dam.
> >>
> >> I disagree. There is nothing that says that a time traveler's effects
must
> >> be of similar magnitude on a micro and macro scale.
> >
> > There's nothing that says *anything*. That is why you have to
establish
> > a scientific hypothesis in the first place. So the author has to
decide
> > early on how things work and stick to it or risk ruining the story.
>
> But I was talking about a lottery, not history. When judging the
> plausibility of a time traveler still being able to predict the winning
> lottery numbers, the question of whether history is chaotic is
irrelevant.
Uh, before the scientific hypothesis comes observation. Are you
claiming you've observed time travel such that you can state what is and
isn't relevant? It may very well be that our current understanding of
chaos is no better than classical mechanics, and an Einstein-like
insight is necessary in order to achieve time travel. I do like the
idea of using such events as a potential test of the many-worlds theory,
though. It all comes down to how much the details would benefit a
story, because there is a real possibility of losing the audience when
you go into Trek-speak about fictional technology.
> > You can attempt to use that as a plot outline, but how well it works
is
> > up to the reader.
>
> I'm not attempting to use anything. I'm just curious as to just how
> sensitive lottery drawings are to initial conditions.
Then you need to ask a question that makes sense. In reality, it's an
untestable system (which you can take to mean very sensitive). In a
fictional reality with time travel, it is up to the author to pick
something that works for the story.
> > You assume that the big stuff is stable and the chaotic
> > stuff has a tipping point, but it may be a better story to display the
> > exact opposite behavior.
>
> This is completely nonsensical. I'm using "chaotic" in the mathematical
> sense of extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. It has a tipping
point
> *by definition*. It can't display the exact opposite behavior, because
if
> it did it wouldn't be chaotic anymore.
The only thing nonsensical is you trying to reconcile classical chaos
with time travel. All I'm saying is that you need to take your
curiosity another step. If you are willing to discard your notion of
what time is, you should be willing to discard your notion of what chaos
is. Sometimes a butterfly is just a butterfly.
--
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
|
