Butterflies and convergence

I think the mathematical chance of X event happening twice in a row has nothing to do with the chance that the butterflies will have any influence on whether or not Jean Lefurgey is going to get shot at Verdun with a POD before WWI.

It's a pretty big philosophical-perspective gap, I admit. It may not be possible to reconcile the divide. But you need to understand how that stands. If you come at this from the point of view of a straight interpretation of chaotic systems and assuming many worlds, that sentence is equivalent to "I think the mathematical chance of X event happening twice in a row has nothing to do with gambling."

You can lose a lot of money that way anywhere you care to try it.
 
I appreciate your perspective. I have to admit I would have (and did) share the same before I really got into probability and statistics. You can see the numbers all day, but you're still left wanting to say "but math doesn't really apply to that." Resistance is not futile. It's easy enough not to study statistics. Just don't do it. Problem solved.

But yeah. Any result is unlikely, including OTL's. To repeat that result in a non-identical universe would become more unlikely the longer and more often it goes on. And it would do so at a prodigious rate - exponential might be understating it.

Say we have a POD where Edd doesn't die of cancer back in May.

By your argument, http://www.lottery.co.uk/results/lotto/past.asp these being the winning numbers in both timelines is impacted.

You can say 'Statistics!" - in long, detailed, thoughtful argument (which I appreciate)or just repeating the word with extra exclamation points until I throw a math book at you, but if there's a one in thirty six chance of something happening in OTL, WWE (World With Edd) gamblers are facing the same odds as I understand dice. Why are they facing different odds because OTL saw someone rolling a given set of numbers? Did the dice change? Did they change? Did the casino change? Did anything about the situation itself change?

That's why I don't get your point. It treats it as if a different timeline is in, in absent of a better word, competition against OTL,where OTL getting something impacts if WWE can get it - and claiming its because math doesn't make a lot more sense than claiming because the Great Turtle will use his divine powers to ensure WWE is unique.


It's a pretty big philosophical-perspective gap, I admit. It may not be possible to reconcile the divide. But you need to understand how that stands. If you come at this from the point of view of a straight interpretation of chaotic systems and assuming many worlds, that sentence is equivalent to "I think the mathematical chance of X event happening twice in a row has nothing to do with gambling."

You can lose a lot of money that way anywhere you care to try it.

And I can lose a lot of money betting that I'll get a different outcome anywhere I care to try it, too, because the odds of getting a 12 on two siz sided dice (instead of the 2 I got before) are 1/36.

It doesn't become 1/35 as if we were playing Russian roulette rock paper scissors style odds.

And I can't believe that was the best example I could think of.
 
Last edited:
I don't really have that much to add, but you made me recall an interesting point: the exact same physical conditions in a system produce the exact same result, but what's the scope of the system?
 
I'll just quote myself since everyone seems to be forgetting this.

As an addendum to the above, the author should not think themselves of possessing omniscience. Things with are too small to be noted, or rather were not recorded at all, in human history are simply too insignificant to build a timeline upon, as there isn't enough information to logically and coherently build upon an alternate history, as one does not even posses a full understanding of actual history for a given scenario, and can not be hand-waved away by simply stating 'butterflies.'

Not forgetting. Just setting aside as immaterial to the discussion at hand.

None of the people you're arguing with are out writing timelines where they detail the reasons each fertilization, squall, and hand of cards played out the way it did. Claims of omniscience are only being applied on your end - not really a straw man, but at that end of the spectrum. Don't mistake our meaning.

In essence, what I'm arguing is that a certain aspect of the universe exists and that, because it exists, I avoid pretending it doesn't in my writing. Aside from that, I hold that this is the appropriate policy in a timeline intended to represent an actual parallel universe. As I said before, I'd as easily advocate ignoring butterflies entirely (in counterfactuals) or applying them only where it suits the plot (in narratives). It depends on the nature, intent, and purpose of the timeline.

For the former, it's nothing more than the application of the best information I have about the nature of the world. I'm unable to interpret that as pretensions to omniscience, despite your posts thus far.

Nor am I able to agree that the method you advocate is the only or even most valid one in all situations. If that changes as I read ahead, I'll certainly note it.
 
Matt: Looking at your post at Wolf_Brother just now.

I wonder if the issue that I am having with your stastistics argument is that I look at alternate history as about counterfactuals (or in that category) - not say, Infinite Worlds.

Which raises a question.

Shouldn't, by your argument, the odds of having timeline 36332 (The Eagle of the Bosporus) be identical to timeline 1 (#1 arbitrarily assigned to OTL) at any point be unlikely? As in, before the "POD" even?

Or am I still missing something?
 
Say we have a POD where Edd doesn't die of cancer back in May.

By your argument, http://www.lottery.co.uk/results/lotto/past.asp these being the winning numbers in both timelines is impacted.

You can say 'Statistics!" - in long, detailed, thoughtful argument (which I appreciate)or just repeating the word with extra exclamation points until I throw a math book at you, but if there's a one in thirty six chance of something happening in OTL, WWE (World With Edd) gamblers are facing the same odds as I understand dice. Why are they facing different odds because OTL saw someone rolling a given set of numbers? Did the dice change? Did they change? Did the casino change? Did anything about the situation itself change?

What I'm saying clearly looks like "the odds will change." Ima go ahead and admit that despite not understanding it, because even if I don't think I'm writing that, if you're still reading that, it must be there on some level.

I'm not saying and have never said that the odds will be different. What I am saying and have said amounts to "the odds are long."

That's it.

They're very, very long.

If you roll a dice in two timelines, should you get the same result?

[Note I do not ask "do the odds of a certain result change?"]

It depends. In identical situations, you should get the same result. Maybe "identical" has to go down to the level of the position of air molecules or further, but if it is truly identical, same result. In different situations, a die has a one in six chance of achieving the same result.

After-the-fact, though, odds are described differently. How likely is it that Washington was America's first president? That's easy - 100% likely. It happened. The probability of OTL in OTL is 1. Duh.

On a micro scale you can apply this to dice as well, since our highest notions of history seem to boil down to details of games of chance.

You roll a six. Great. What's the chances you just rolled a six? The question is meaningless, you did it. It was one in six, now it is one in one. What are the chances you'd roll a six in an alternate timeline where the September 11th attacks only succeeded in striking the Pentagon? Still one in six. So what are the odds that both timelines have the same dice roll have the same result? One in six.

That's pretty unlikely, when you come down to it.

Can you see where this line of thought comes from? The logic behind it, anyway? I can't say I expect to convert anyone, but I really hope this iteration has the clarity that you can understand my position.

That's why I don't get your point. It treats it as if a different timeline is in, in absent of a better word, competition against OTL,where OTL getting something impacts if WWE can get it - and claiming its because math doesn't make a lot more sense than claiming because the Great Turtle will use his divine powers to ensure WWE is unique.

I suppose that did come off as an Appeal to Authority, rather than as an olive branch, which is what intended. My bad.

But if you could just take the time and flagellation to let the Great Turtle ensconce itself in your liver....

And I can lose a lot of money betting that I'll get a different outcome anywhere I care to try it, too, because the odds of getting a 12 on two siz sided dice (instead of the 2 I got before) are 1/36.

It doesn't become 1/35 as if we were playing Russian roulette rock paper scissors style odds.

And I can't believe that was the best example I could think of.

Okay, now you lost me. What? :)
 
The way I see it butterflies in these sort of events is probability, but unless while writing your timeline you sit there and throw percentage dice around, you make a conscious choice based on probabilities, and in that case any non-impossible event is plausible.

I see it as equally likely that changes from different eggs/spermatazoa will result in a generally "same" person, as that it will result in one with some radical differences. Neither is unlikely, so its the call of the timeline writer.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
And I can lose a lot of money betting that I'll get a different outcome anywhere I care to try it, too, because the odds of getting a 12 on two siz sided dice (instead of the 2 I got before) are 1/36.

It doesn't become 1/35 as if we were playing Russian roulette rock paper scissors style odds.

And I can't believe that was the best example I could think of.

Probability is great isn't it :) I once went for a job where there were 6 of us for 2 jobs, but the odds were not 1-in-3 but 1-in-5 because once they had assigned the first job, they then reviewed all remaining candidates for the second job.

Your example above is about the opposite, that each "go" is a repeat of each other, with the same likelihood, rather than each "go" altering the odds as it would with a six-shooter with one bullet.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
What I'm saying clearly looks like "the odds will change." Ima go ahead and admit that despite not understanding it, because even if I don't think I'm writing that, if you're still reading that, it must be there on some level.

I'm not saying and have never said that the odds will be different. What I am saying and have said amounts to "the odds are long."

And they were (For what we've been talking about) long in the first place! I do know statistics well enough to know that I'm more likely to get a seven on two six sided dice than a ten.

On a micro scale you can apply this to dice as well, since our highest notions of history seem to boil down to details of games of chance.

You roll a six. Great. What's the chances you just rolled a six? The question is meaningless, you did it. What are the chances you'd roll a six in an alternate timeline where the September 11th attacks only succeeded in striking the Pentagon? Still one in six. So what are the odds that both timelines have the same dice roll have the same result? One in six.

That's pretty unlikely, when you come down to it.

Can you see where this line of thought comes from? The logic behind it, anyway? I can't say I expect to convert anyone, but I really hope this iteration has the clarity that you can understand my position.
If the odds of me rolling a six are one in six in both #1, and #2, why the hell does it matter whether the #1 outcome was a six?

Bold italics underline because that's the part we're dancing around and you're trying (I presume, since you've been very civil and reasonable) to show me the answer to.

I suppose that did come off as an Appeal to Authority, rather than as an olive branch, which is what intended. My bad.
Not quite Appeal to Authority so much as claiming that some mysterious force is at work - like the Great Turtle - to me, that is.

So olive branch accepted with both hands, if such was your intent.

Okay, now you lost me. What? :)
From the Pico vs. Uberkids flash game.

Rock paper scissors, loser has to spin the chamber for the revolver. In the game, it goes from 1/6, to 1/5, to 1/4, to 1/3, etc. (until someone gets shot).


Probability is great isn't it :) I once went for a job where there were 6 of us for 2 jobs, but the odds were not 1-in-3 but 1-in-5 because once they had assigned the first job, they then reviewed all remaining candidates for the second job.

Your example above is about the opposite, that each "go" is a repeat of each other, with the same likelihood, rather than each "go" altering the odds as it would with a six-shooter with one bullet.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

shows it in a less disturbing fashion.
 
The thing with winning the lottery is that in a SENSE the probability is 1 in12 million x 1 in 12 million because to win it twice in a row, this is how probability works. HOWEVER, in a real sense it REMAINS 1 in 12 million for the second event because the INDIVIDUAL odds of winning that second lottery have not been changed by the fact of winning the first...

*12 million is an example

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Matt: Looking at your post at Wolf_Brother just now.

I wonder if the issue that I am having with your stastistics argument is that I look at alternate history as about counterfactuals (or in that category) - not say, Infinite Worlds.

Well you worked it out better than I did. I couldn't figure out what perspective was drawing your responses to save the life of me. Hence the brilliant strategy: "try it over and over again, but this time explain it harder." :rolleyes:

Which raises a question.

Shouldn't, by your argument, the odds of having timeline 36332 (The Eagle of the Bosporus) be identical to timeline 1 (#1 arbitrarily assigned to OTL) at any point be unlikely? As in, before the "POD" even?

Or am I still missing something?

Not really. Under a multiversal interpretation, worlds that have yet to experience a POD from Timeline 1 would effectively be Timeline 1. If you (very hypothetically) were in one and "looked" into the other, there would be nothing to differentiate the two - how could you tell you were looking outside your own universe? If they're pre-POD, by definition they should be the same down to the smallest measurable details.

Perhaps we also define POD differently?
 
Last edited:
I think we can all agree this is a frustrating discussion. I'm going to go meta for a moment and admit I've only been in it because I had a really excellent place from which to watch the sun set on a Thai beach.

The corollary of that is that it is now safe for me to show my skin, so I'm out again. Bye.
 
Well you worked it out better than I did. I couldn't figure out what perspective was drawing your responses to save the life of me. Hence the brilliant strategy: "try it over and over again, but this time explain it harder." :rolleyes:

Glad to know that its a matter of how we approach the "What does this even mean?" rather than you sucking at explaining.

And thank you for being so patient with me sounding so oblivious/stubborn.

Not really. Under a multiversal interpretation, worlds that have yet to experience a POD from Timeline 1 would effectively be Timeline 1. If you (very hypothetically) were in one and "looked" into the other, there would be nothing to differentiate the two - how could you tell you were looking outside your own universe? If they're pre-POD, by definition they should be the same down to the smallest measurable details.

Perhaps we also define POD differently?

I don't think so - or at least I hope not.

And how would you know you were looking outside your own universe in ours vs. World With Edd?

Besides, y'know, Edd being alive.

And see ya when it's no longer safe to be exposed to sun.
 
Top