Butterfly Effect
- Thread starter Doc Clark
- Start date
A small change at the exact right place can be a big change, but losing a horseshoe nail does not inevitably mean losing the horse, let alone the battle, let alone the kingdom.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=201840
There are some other threads on the subject, this I think is the most recent. Worth a read.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=201840
There are some other threads on the subject, this I think is the most recent. Worth a read.
Should that person bend down and look for it, they could change their "genetic flow", and once that changes, it can never change back. There will be no real difference if the guy never has a kid (again or otherwise), but if that man does have a child, that child will be a sibling of the OTL counterpart.
That's my theory.
Alternately (my view) - the change to the man is so small that it makes no appreciable difference on the child.
And certainly not on anyone who has never met him (the man in question).
Using your situation to illustrate my position better, not trying to argue with you.
I think it kind off depends on our views on Spirituality, If we believe in destiny, we have only few choices of outcomes that will happen and there are things that are prearranged.
But what about the incredibly random process of which sperm hits the egg (not to even mention the fact that conceiving the child a month earlier or later will have a different egg with different genes)?
Let's say the odds are one in ten million that a given sperm hits the egg (and that its the same egg because he's still "summoning the stork" on Thursday).
The odds are still one in ten million in this what if. Nothing has made that sperm more unlikely to be the lucky sperm, because the changes haven't caused anything that would alter that (they're too small). And the egg hasn't been impacted at all by this.
Its just as (un)likely to work out as OTL so far as the kid goes as OTL.
Does that make sense? Whether or not you agree, I'm just trying to see if I'm being clear here.
I don't agree, at all, but I see where you're coming from. I'm not going to really press this issue, though.
Any change, no matter how small is going to lead to differences down the road, their is no questioning that.
The size and speed at which these occur can differ though; for instance, Hitler dieing right before he finished Mein Kampf is going to lead to major butterflies and history becoming different very quickly whereas say the Great, Great Grandfather of never having children is going to lead to a much slower set of changes in history.
The size and speed at which these occur can differ though; for instance, Hitler dieing right before he finished Mein Kampf is going to lead to major butterflies and history becoming different very quickly whereas say the Great, Great Grandfather of never having children is going to lead to a much slower set of changes in history.
I think I know what you are saying. But just because the odds don't change doesn't mean the outcome wont change.
So if you kick a guy in the crotch, the odds of him having his OTL child is statisically insignifcant. Kick 10 million guys in the crotch, maybe an OTL character is born, maybe two, maybe two dozen. But that's like finding a needle in a haystack.
And just to let you know, the number would be WAY higher than 10 million. Way way higher.
So if you kick a guy in the crotch, the odds of him having his OTL child is statisically insignifcant. Kick 10 million guys in the crotch, maybe an OTL character is born, maybe two, maybe two dozen. But that's like finding a needle in a haystack.
And just to let you know, the number would be WAY higher than 10 million. Way way higher.
How so?
Not arguing, just...let's say we have a POD that involves me having two slices of pizza instead of three tonight.
What will make that more important in twenty years than in two? Or two hundred than twenty?
Picking something minor as the starting point's size isn't relevant to changes growing larger over time.
Quite alright, just glad it made sense.
Not sure I follow what you mean here, particularly the first and last two sentences.
I also forgot to include the scale of the POD. A minor POD that involves us mere commoners isn't as influential as one involving the economy.
A minor POD involving us mere commoners would presumably still increase in significance on our scale, even if the world would never notice the difference between there being a George Bailey or not.
...what, it is a great movie and a good example of how many changes something "small" makes.
Not trying to be rude when I say this, but you should take a stats class if you have the option to do so in high school or college. To me, you're saying the odds are the same that an OTL figure is born; thus, that same outcome has to happen.
The last two sentences mean that the ratio is higher because there is WAY more than 10 million sperms in the male body at any given time. I don't know the anatomical specifics, but does anyone feel like looking that one up?
No rudeness perceived. And not intentionally. I'm saying that if nothing significant enough to make it more or less likely than it was OTL happens, the OTL result is just as (un)likely as OTL - and there's no reason (speaking as an author) for it to happen differently.
For instance, a world where I never post this gibberish (my word, not implying in any way shape or form what anyone else thinks of this post), my sister is probably going to still be a vegetarian because not posting this has no impact on the factors influencing that, therefore it will happen or not based on how the factors that do influence that go rather than on the ones that determine if this post is written or not.
Obviously after the POD the writer can determine whether or not the factors influencing her dietary preferences are also changed or not so for timeline writing it could go either way.
I don't know how many are in the male body at a given time, but I looked up the other day for the discussion I dropped a link to how many are...released at a given time. I think it was a couple hundred million.The last two sentences mean that the ratio is higher because there is WAY more than 10 million sperms in the male body at any given time. I don't know the anatomical specifics, but does anyone feel like looking that one up?
And ten million was picked just for the sake of having a large enough number that one in X would be miniscule. No attempt to refer to actual numbers of sperm was made, since the point would be the same either way.
Last edited:
I am of the opinion that every person, regardless of their position, has some sort of impact on history. Although the changes caused by minor deviations are usually more difficult to see initially, given time they begin to snowball. All actions have consequences, both seen and unseen.
To further what earlier posters have written, even if the same sperm reaches the egg it is possible that the individual may be raised under slightly different circumstances which could in turn have a huge impact on that person's personality and character later in life. Alternate Einstein may have the potential to achieve greatness like his real world counterpart, but he may choose not to pursue it. Different memories, different outlook on life, etc.
To further what earlier posters have written, even if the same sperm reaches the egg it is possible that the individual may be raised under slightly different circumstances which could in turn have a huge impact on that person's personality and character later in life. Alternate Einstein may have the potential to achieve greatness like his real world counterpart, but he may choose not to pursue it. Different memories, different outlook on life, etc.
Grey Wolf
Donor
I always find this argument spurious (no offence)
Take a historical individual, and now take this proposed "Other" born a few days later of a different sperm and egg.
He will be given the SAME NAME as the historical individual, he will have the same genetic background, he will be raised in exactly the same way, go to the same school, have the same people around him in his early life and so on
Barring genetic disasters, such as being born disabled or with Downs, this "Other" will be to all intents and purposes the same person as the OTL figure. Perhaps he will look slightly different, perhaps he will have a slightly different temperament, but for anything that counts in an ATL he is going to be a genuine Ersatz Historical Individual
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
As a rule I'd apply this rule only one generation from the POD, and then from that point on the ATL people become more different. So a 1500 POD won't result in Napoleon wreaking havoc on Europe 300 years later.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Certainly I'd agree to that
By the second generation a whole host of secondary butterflies are flapping their wingsBest Regards
Grey Wolf