Fallacies of alternate history

[Glen]

BTW, if we hypothesize one single origin of the Universe, such that its initial state is 1 for all timelines, then if the amount of mass/energy is finite, the number of timelines is also finite, and not infinite.

However, it is a VERY VERY large number, and might as well be infinite in terms of our ability to imagine all of them, but finite nonetheless.

 

[Thande]

You have to work with what you have. Of course, maybe you can enlinghten us about what the physics of 2106 will look like.

@Glen: Do we need to go over that convergence thing again? Unless it happens at a microscopical level, it's only an illusion.

Of course not and I agree. We have no choice but to assume that our current theories are 'correct'... however, we should bear in mine that they are NOT the ultimate truth and reality, and so if someone else decides to use a different approach to projecting a timeline, then they are not automatically 'wrong'.

Unless of course it involves a successful Sealion.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

I personally think that view is rather arrogant. Imagine a hypothetical alternate historian of, say, Galileo's time attempting to project the future based on what were then thought to be the immutable physical laws of the universe.

In fact a combination of Newtonian determinism and predestination rather precluded the very development of counterfactual histories, because then they were held to be the unshakeable foundations of physics.

I would be extremely surprised if the alternate historians of 2106 are still using chaos theory or quantum theory-derived concepts in order to construct their timelines. Much less scientists.

Well, in Galileo's time, they didn't even have the concept of the Uncertainty Principle, let alone the idea that one is incapable of decisively determining the state charged particles due to the constraints brought about by the wavelength of light quanta, and the ramifications thereof. At the time, physics would have nothing to offer an alternate historian.

The simple fact that Heisenberg's observations were made is important to anybody thinking about the butterfly effect. It shows that in any given situation, you are not presented with A=B. You are presented with A=B, C, or D. B might occur 10 times out of 20, while C and D only occur 5 times each. Thus, even if my POD is George Washington getting shot at Fort DuQuense, there is still a chance that Frederick the Great falls off his horse, and dies at the same time, all the way over in Prussia. Granted, it might be small, the chance is nonetheless there.

Granted, it may be a little arrogant, but in terms of scientific inmutability, the Uncertainty Principle is pretty much at the top. I don't think I'd be alone in putting it right up there with General Relativity and the Law of Gravity.

While our understanding of the Uncertainty Principle may evolve over time, just as our understanding of Gravity has changed, I highly doubt that we will ever be able to move away from it.

 

[Thande]

The simple fact that Heisenberg's observations were made is important to anybody thinking about the butterfly effect. It shows that in any given situation, you are not presented with A=B. You are presented with A=B, C, or D. B might occur 10 times out of 20, while C and D only occur 5 times each. Thus, even if my POD is George Washington getting shot at Fort DuQuense, there is still a chance that Frederick the Great falls off his horse, and dies at the same time, all the way over in Prussia. Granted, it might be small, the chance is nonetheless there.

Granted, it may be a little arrogant, but in terms of scientific inmutability, the Uncertainty Principle is pretty much at the top. I don't think I'd be alone in putting it right up there with General Relativity and the Law of Gravity.

While our understanding of the Uncertainty Principle may evolve over time, just as our understanding of Gravity has changed, I highly doubt that we will ever be able to move away from it.

I would disagree strongly with those assumptions.

The Uncertainty Principle is based upon theory as applied to the non-trivial interpretation of experimental results which are several levels removed from one in which we can reliably employ intuitive reasoning.

Frankly, I am sure there are an almost infinite number of theories that one could use to explain the sort of experimental results which are used to justify the current model of quantum theory. The evidence is simply far too ambiguous.

I should point out that I am not speaking from a properly scientifically disinterested viewpoint here. After having studied quantum physics for the past year at Cambridge as part of my chemistry degree, I've become convinced that it is only a matter of time before the theory faces a Kuhnian-level revolution. In my view we have faced a regression to classical Greek philosophy on this level: theories based on abstract mathematical concepts are allowed to define our understanding of subatomic mechanics, and empiricism must take a back seat. This is not a sustainable position.

It could even be argued that quantum theory is psychologically explicable as the ultimate desperate attempt by humanity's collective consciousness to define and pigeonhole a cosmos that refuses to be categorised. Yes, the Uncertainty Principle is well known, but quantum theory is really an attempt at determinism on a "particular" scale now that it has been discredited on a macroscopic, day-to-day scale. Essentially, a quantum physical viewpoint would allow one to classify every single item in the universe in terms of the particles it is composed of, and then pigeonhole those particles into quarks or leptons, colour, spin, etc. - trying to impose a neat, human-invented mathematical order on something which in my opinion is unlikely to express such in the abstract.

Now all of this has very little to do with AH, of course, but I am merely stating that I do not believe that the ramifications of quantum theory are sufficiently 'set in stone' - far from it - for us to assume that any AH-projection based on quantum uncertainty is 'the only true and correct approach'.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

Frankly, I am sure there are an almost infinite number of theories that one could use to explain the sort of experimental results which are used to justify the current model of quantum theory. The evidence is simply far too ambiguous.

In all curiosity and seriousness, if you know of specific theories that effectively explain the various phenomena ascribed by quantum theory, I would be eager to read up on them.

In my view we have faced a regression to classical Greek philosophy on this level: theories based on abstract mathematical concepts are allowed to define our understanding of subatomic mechanics, and empiricism must take a back seat. This is not a sustainable position.

I'd agree that we've reached a point where a vast understanding of theoretical math is required to fully grasp the events we hope to explain, but how else are we to do it?

It could even be argued that quantum theory is psychologically explicable as the ultimate desperate attempt by humanity's collective consciousness to define and pigeonhole a cosmos that refuses to be categorised. Yes, the Uncertainty Principle is well known, but quantum theory is really an attempt at determinism on a "particular" scale now that it has been discredited on a macroscopic, day-to-day scale. Essentially, a quantum physical viewpoint would allow one to classify every single item in the universe in terms of the particles it is composed of, and then pigeonhole those particles into quarks or leptons, colour, spin, etc. - trying to impose a neat, human-invented mathematical order on something which in my opinion is unlikely to express such in the abstract.

I think I'd agree with your general theory, and disagree with the particulars. What is science but the effort to explain everything and put a nice mathematical order to everything? It would seem to me that quantum mechanics is far more resistant to "determinism" than say, general relativity. No words of mine can sum up the position of general relativity vis a vis determinism/randomness better than Einstein's. "God does not play dice."

Now all of this has very little to do with AH, of course, but I am merely stating that I do not believe that the ramifications of quantum theory are sufficiently 'set in stone' - far from it - for us to assume that any AH-projection based on quantum uncertainty is 'the only true and correct approach'.

I think that is a fair enough statement. As you note, quantum mechanics is not without its flaws and cannot explain everything. And I don't mean to imply that everybody should use a strict butterfly model based on the macrocosmic ramifications of the Uncertainty Principle. I just don't think I could go any other way.

 

[srv fan]

Here are some things many TL feature that annoy me to no end. If anyone said this before, my fault:

1) Pre-Meiji Japan taking ludicrously large swathes of Asia. As Flocc has pointed out time after time, Japan was for most of its history an unimportant, divided backwater. Essentially the Central America to China's US and Korea's Mexico.

One thing I note often on TLs is what I call "wargamer sydrome."

Wargamer syndrome is defined by treating nations as the characters of a TL, rather than individuals. Now, I'm not saying for a proper TL that you need to always get into the nitty-gritty of the personality of each king, president, ect. But you need an understanding that nations are not run by immortal god-emperors. National priorities can shift in less than a generation. Leaders of greater and lesser abilities come to the forefront. And the system can decay from corruption, be strengthened from reform, etc.

I guess my point is nations are the stages for history, not the makers of history itself. Seeing blobs move around on the map is nothing but abstraction without linking it at least in part to individuals, society at large, and culture.

I will second this HEARTILY. People dramatically underestimate the importance of individual leaders decisions. As in, the King of Poland deciding to send Jan Sobieski in 1683 to relieve the Austrians at Vienna. Without which, Vienna falls, guarenteed.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

@Glen: Just because we don't see the differences doesn't mean they're not there. We don't see the immediate differences caused by the butterfly flapping its wings in a different way. You're only thinking in terms of what we perceive, but what we don't perceive does change the world. This has been discussed before, and other people have explained it better than me.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

I never really see a lot of scenarios that discuss things like the would be Hitler who drown in a well as a child, or things like that.

 

[Akiyama]

I never really see a lot of scenarios that discuss things like the would be Hitler who drown in a well as a child, or things like that.

You mean like this one?

The drowned baby timeline



I agree that you don't see many timelines where the POD is the removal of a historical figure, and even less where the POD is that a historical figure exists who is unborn or unknown in OTL.

 

[HelloLegend]

I think more people should be butterflied in timelines.

 

[Jared]

And also a fundamentalist approach tends to make things incredibly boring because you rapidly run out of OTL figures that the reader will recognise; anyone born after the POD is different...

Unless you're Jared and can flesh out the ATL until it seems more real than OTL, that is

Although I do use historical characters born well after the PoD. Such is life...

Of course, I have reasons for this. They're somewhere in the DoD thread, and I don't have the time to dig this out now, but it boils down to think of them as analogues - a convenient point of reference so we can think how OTL figures might have thought if they had grown up in the DoD world.

 

[HelloLegend]

I haven't made any timelines yet, though I am working on one where Nurhaci dies of smallpox as a child. However, I will tell you that none of emperors in the dynasty that didn't happen would be born.

 

[KJM]

even less where the POD is that a historical figure exists who is unborn or unknown in OTL.

I tried this once. In retrospect, though, I didn't do that great a job.

 

[Othniel]

Remeber that alternate history is a literary creation, thus the most probable corse is not the most likely corse, rather it is the corse best suited for the story. The setting is detrimined by time and the corse it takes. Part of the fun of alternate history is seeing familliar characters in unfamiliar settings, or vice versa.

To me a Time Travel story using the concept of historical predestination is intresting, but not in alternate history. In a time travel story you work with a period of intresting concepts, however in an alternate history your goal is to change history into something new that has historical grounding.

To me implausiblity doesn't matter either. Take Washington's Warlocks, I enjoy that story however it will never be plausible. It stays consist in the actions of its charcters, it stays consistant in its plot, and is generally well written. It takes a large scale change and deals with it in a constant manner, however constant isn't the same as plausible. The actions of the characters, of other inities is plausilbe for their natures among other things, but the very POD is impossible.

Write what you will, and be able to back it up by showing its consistancy within the story. If your using an erratic charcter than his actions should be irractic. Butterflies should be consistant within the actions of people and the general sociology presented. Once you get beyond a generation of changes and passed their childern and their grandchildern those known influences end and you must now have the actions of the new generations be consistant actions within the setting. Technological progress will set off change, change will bring further changes, and you must have the charcters, and group of peoples react to those changes for the vallitidy of the timeline to be accepted. If stagnation is the proper response to this than use stagnation. If progress, or reform, or changes are the proper repsponse then use those. Just make sure your effects have causes.