Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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?
I never said I was making a scientific hypothesis. I was engaged in
speculation, pure and simple.
I wish you would stop putting words into my mouth. This is the second time
you've accused me of claiming to have observed things when I've made no
such claim. I'm not putting forth any fact, or basing any of my
speculation on things I've personally seen. I'm just asking a question
about real-world chaotic behavior and how much a small effect can disrupt
a macroscopic system in a short period of time. I don't know what your
problem is with me, but that's all I'm doing.
> 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.
Personally I couldn't care less about how well these ideas fit into a
story, those are better handled over in rasfw anyway. You are of course
welcome to it, but that's not my intent.
>> > 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.
Just because a question cannot be tested does not mean that it does not
make sense. Such questions are asked in this group constantly.
>> > 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.
Why? The interesting thing about the science in SF is taking *one*
interesting change and seeing how it fits into what's known. If I'm just
going to make up *everything* as I go along, I'll move to a fantasy group.
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
|
