The Butterfly Effect

[loneranger]

This is a thread for extensive talk of the butterfly effect. So here's my question, should butterflies really effect things they shouldn't be able to effect. For example, say the POD happens in Europe, and Japan is super isolationist, could this really effect anything there if they have no contact whatsoever?

Or, if a POD is simply that someone sneezes when indeed they did not in OTL, does this effect the outcome of a war 1,000 years hence?

 

[BlackWave]

It all really depends on how much you embrace the butterfly effect. I can't imagine how someone sneezing or tripping up in 1434 will result in Hitler conquering the world, but for more complex things like the effects of European change on Japan is up to the author. There's many different ways an event can affect another.

 

[BriefMortal]

I have a good PoD for one thing. Give one man the flu and I could maybe stop the Russian Revolution

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Even without venturing into the most radical interpretations of the butterfly effect, I am of the opinion that the butterfly effect is only a measure of our lack of knowledge.

There is, then, a chance that, through thousands upon thousands of simple cause-effect happenings that ripple through centuries, a sneeze can indeed change the outcome of a war fought 1000 years later. Maybe even by preventing the countries who fought in that war of ever existing. Each one of these happenings could be easily and logically explained as the logical conclusion of a former cause, but, for any time frame longer than a few hours, they become too many and their interactions too complex for the human mind to even comprehend.

This hobby of alternate history attempts the impossible task of attempting to make plausible predictions of what changes in the outcome when certain start conditions are changed. Unfortunately, human life is so incredibly complex that we can never know how many factors should we take into account -their number cannot be infinite, but it may as well be for practical purposes-. We cannot know with certainty, hence we must assume that, save for very short time spans, the outcome of our scenario will be determined by either our narrative needs or random luck. This is only a measure of our ignorance. The butterfly effect is only the acceptation of this: that the factors that influence history are so complex and incontable that, after a point, we may as well consider their evolution as random luck.

 

[MrP]

This is a thread for extensive talk of the butterfly effect. So here's my question, should butterflies really effect things they shouldn't be able to effect. For example, say the POD happens in Europe, and Japan is super isolationist, could this really effect anything there if they have no contact whatsoever?

Or, if a POD is simply that someone sneezes when indeed they did not in OTL, does this effect the outcome of a war 1,000 years hence?

Let's take two coin tosses as an example. Let's imagine they're perfectly weighted, each having as much likelihood of landing tails as heads. The first coin toss is in Europe and IOTL is heads. ITTL it's tails. The second coin toss is in Japan and IOTL was also heads. ITTL it is also tails. The first coin toss ITTL didn't actually alter anything about the second coin toss. The odds were just the same as IOTL. However, since the odds were the same, by chance the second coin toss wasn't the same as IOTL.

Extend this to considering children. IOTL a boy. ITTL a girl. Then broaden the concept so that it applies to everything. This doesn't mean that everything must be different at once, but it does ask us to reconsider whether the events of OTL should be wholly replicated in an ATL - bar the PoD.

 

[Hnau]

I have two rules for butterflies. The first is that everyone born a year or two after the POD are going to be completely different, unless they are nearly completely isolated by affected people, such as pre-1492 Americas, pre-1600s Australia, and to some extent pre-1840 Japan.

The second is that unless an event directly affects another, you can block 90% of all historical events with a butterfly net.

This means you get a good twenty, thirty years or so of relatively easy AH before you have to start evaluating people-butterflies all around the world.

 

[catboy637]

Anything that can create a butterfly, will create a butterfly.

 

[dcver]

Well you have to look at the cause/effect relationship. If the POD or any effect of it results in interfering with the cause of another event, the second event is either altered or butterflied away. For example if a timeline removes the french revolution or something, you can expect future ones that were influenced by it to be altered.

 

[Bearcat]

Butterflies mean all RANDOM events get 'rerolled': so different sperm fertilize the eggs, different planes and tanks break down in a battle, so different people live, etc. Outcomes which depend on probability increasingly diverge with time.

Intentions won't change so quickly. Hitler is still going to try to ass whip the Soviets in '41 no matter what you change (within reason) in '39.

My feeling is, complex systems like weather take a while to be affected. On day one, everything at observable level of detail matches OTL. On day 30, its still pretty close. After one year, there are profound differences, After five, no correlation can be made. It takes a while for a small energy input and random quantum level changes to build up into a completely different TL.

That's my take, anyway.

 

[Astrodragon]

Butterflies mean all RANDOM events get 'rerolled': so different sperm fertilize the eggs, different planes and tanks break down in a battle, so different people live, etc. Outcomes which depend on probability increasingly diverge with time.

Intentions won't change so quickly. Hitler is still going to try to ass whip the Soviets in '41 no matter what you change (within reason) in '39.

My feeling is, complex systems like weather take a while to be affected. On day one, everything at observable level of detail matches OTL. On day 30, its still pretty close. After one year, there are profound differences, After five, no correlation can be made. It takes a while for a small energy input and random quantum level changes to build up into a completely different TL.

That's my take, anyway.

It does raise the question, though, if there will be much, if any, difference in say 20 years time. Granted individuals will differ, but will it all average out - different people in the roles, but for example science would be little affected. Same for technology - even if someone who would have made a breakthrough isnt born, someone else will make it. There may be small differences in exactly when something happens, both bot much significant.

The question is, of course, how much impact does a particular maverick individual have? And if he/she wasnt around, what would the replacement do??

 

[MrP]

It does raise the question, though, if there will be much, if any, difference in say 20 years time. Granted individuals will differ, but will it all average out - different people in the roles, but for example science would be little affected. Same for technology - even if someone who would have made a breakthrough isnt born, someone else will make it. There may be small differences in exactly when something happens, both bot much significant.

The question is, of course, how much impact does a particular maverick individual have? And if he/she wasnt around, what would the replacement do??

I think Justin Pickard posted the example of Darwin's grandfather not being born. IIRC, not only did we lose Charles, but also the Wedgewood Pottery firm and the Royal Horticultural Society - and possibly a few other bits and bobs. The results would certainly be felt today.

 

[SunilTanna]

The idea comes from chaos theory. It was noticed in weather modelling that the effect of including or not a butterfly's wing flapping in Beijing is enough to radically change the weather across the rest of the world a month or two later.

So in Alternate history, the idea idea, is that any change, however small, produces a cascade of unpredictable consequences. It's like the fall of a tiny pebble eventually setting of a massive avalanche. It could be a different sperm fertilizes an egg, the weather, whether a person makes an appointment or not - therefore gets a job, which then affects somebody else, who doesn't meet his wife, etc.

Butterflies in Alternate History seem to be accepted wisdom on this board. One of the objections to say, S.M.Stirling's Draka books, is the world changes in 1776 or whenever, and there's a massive evil South African state, but we still have World War 1 and World War 2, almost exactly like our World War 1 and 2, and even including historical figures such as Hitler, Goering, Stalin, etc.

But that also illustrates the problem in fiction. AH books are a lot more attractive to a lot more people, if they link to a recognizable history. A WW2 analog with an evil South Africa might be interesting to the buffs on this board, but it would be unrecognizable without Hitler, Nazis, Pearl Harbor, etc.

I have also argued against over use of butterfly arguments on this board.

If alternate timelines are infinite, and if every *possible* history (n.b. "possible histories" are a much smaller set of timelines than "imaginable histories") does occur in one or other timeline, then there will be one almost exactly like ours, except for an evil South Africa, or a different Japan etc. Since we choose which timelines to discuss or include in fiction - there's no reason why we shouldn't sometimes pick those which are very much like ours, and the butterfly effects are surprisingly small.

 

[Rakhasa]

Extend this to considering children. IOTL a boy. ITTL a girl. Then broaden the concept so that it applies to everything. This doesn't mean that everything must be different at once, but it does ask us to reconsider whether the events of OTL should be wholly replicated in an ATL - bar the PoD.

You are oversimplifiing a LOT the children, and they are the main cause or far-off butterflies.
Every child born is the product of a specific spermatozooid among, literally, millions. Each of those is a different sibling. Even if everithing is the same, something so simple as taking of your pants the right leg first instead of the left, or opening the bedroom door with a different hand, will change the final outcome -so now Washington will not be George, but a sibling of his with the same name.

Minor changes will not change far away outcomes for living people -a POD in 1930 Australia will probably not affect Hitler's rise to power, for instance- but within a generation everybody will be different than their counterparts, even if their parents gave them the same names

 

[MrP]

You are oversimplifiing a LOT the children, and they are the main cause or far-off butterflies.

I am. I do so because the very concept of butterflies seems a bit tricky to grasp, so I didn't want to overload chaps with TMI all at once. Your extended explanation is a valuable continuation.

 

[trekchu]

I have also argued against over use of butterfly arguments on this board.

If alternate timelines are infinite, and if every *possible* history (n.b. "possible histories" are a much smaller set of timelines than "imaginable histories") does occur in one or other timeline, then there will be one almost exactly like ours, except for an evil South Africa, or a different Japan etc. Since we choose which timelines to discuss or include in fiction - there's no reason why we shouldn't sometimes pick those which are very much like ours, and the butterfly effects are surprisingly small.

This is why I will never post any of my own AH work on this board. I tend to use historical figures for the simple reason taht I don't have to spend half the time explaining their character or motivations.

 

[Oddball]

This is why I will never post any of my own AH work on this board. I tend to use historical figures for the simple reason taht I don't have to spend half the time explaining their character or motivations.

And this is why the butterfly fundamentalists are so bad for ATL as I think they are

IMO the butterfly theory is a excellent excuse for doing an ATL excercise, but it should be used to the writers benefit, not as an straightjacket!

The flow of history is underrated. That is my view, and it is just as valid as any butterfly fundamentalist

I find some of the members perception and then harassment of others regarding the butterfly theory quite laughable. Especialy when it is the same people who critisices religious believers.

Both religion and chaos/butterfly theory is just belief and theory. It cannot be proven. That is why I find fundamentalist arguments in both cases of little interest.

IMO both the chaos theory and butterfly fundamentalism sucks bigtime.

 

[Tellus]

And this is why the butterfly fundamentalists are so bad for ATL as I think they are

IMO the butterfly theory is a excellent excuse for doing an ATL excercise, but it should be used to the writers benefit, not as an straightjacket!

The flow of history is underrated. That is my view, and it is just as valid as any butterfly fundamentalist

I find some of the members perception and then harassment of others regarding the butterfly theory quite laughable. Especialy when it is the same people who critisices religious believers.

Both religion and chaos/butterfly theory is just belief and theory. It cannot be proven. That is why I find fundamentalist arguments in both cases of little interest.

IMO both the chaos theory and butterfly fundamentalism sucks bigtime.

This pretty much reflects my view. It should be fine to ignore some plausible butterflies in the interest of the story. Obviously if you kill someone, his grandchildren should never come to be, but its okay in my mind to have a POD in the 19th century and decide you still want to have many major 20th century figures around mostly unchanged. Its fine for me to decide that the destiny of great men cannot be altered easily and it provides for elements of familiarity in a story.

 

[Alex Richards]

Even without venturing into the most radical interpretations of the butterfly effect, I am of the opinion that the butterfly effect is only a measure of our lack of knowledge.

There is, then, a chance that, through thousands upon thousands of simple cause-effect happenings that ripple through centuries, a sneeze can indeed change the outcome of a war fought 1000 years later. Maybe even by preventing the countries who fought in that war of ever existing. Each one of these happenings could be easily and logically explained as the logical conclusion of a former cause, but, for any time frame longer than a few hours, they become too many and their interactions too complex for the human mind to even comprehend.

This hobby of alternate history attempts the impossible task of attempting to make plausible predictions of what changes in the outcome when certain start conditions are changed. Unfortunately, human life is so incredibly complex that we can never know how many factors should we take into account -their number cannot be infinite, but it may as well be for practical purposes-. We cannot know with certainty, hence we must assume that, save for very short time spans, the outcome of our scenario will be determined by either our narrative needs or random luck. This is only a measure of our ignorance. The butterfly effect is only the acceptation of this: that the factors that influence history are so complex and incontable that, after a point, we may as well consider their evolution as random luck.

I hereby name you AH.com's great philosopher for that extrodinary insight into the deeper meaning of this serene orb we call Earth

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

I agree witht he last few; this is why I havne't posted any TLs on here other than sports, which for obvious reasons fans almost *have* to see all the real players for it to make any sense.

A Middle Ages POD isa little easier for me, then, because it forces me to avoid necessarily using the exact same people and history, but also because with dynastic marriages, I can also keep certain people around a bit more. Although I've already (unwittingly at first) altered the future Kings of France, as well as obviously the kings of England. I think my religious beliefs play a part in it, which is what I thought Oddball was referring to at first glance. I would guess that a good number, though certainly not all, of those who believe in a more continuous flow of history, in certain sperm instead of a chatoic one in a million chances, and so on believe in some sort of intelligent force - God, in my case - causing that flow to continue, causing certain people to be born, and allowing things to progress based ont he choices of people. That doesn't mean different people can't be born - such as when the future Louis VIII marries Eleanor, older sister of Arthur. It does, to me, mean people will be born unless it is impossible for them to be born.

I guess you could call it strict versus loose construction and interpretation of the butterfly effect. The fundamentalists are the strict constructionalists, people like myself and some of the recent posters are simply loose constructionalists.

 

[Alex Richards]

A loose interpretation of the Butterfly effect makes it easier to write a timeline. After all, if you decide that everyone born after say 1734 will not exist or exist in a different form, it makes it very hard to work out what will happen (no wars are inevitable)