NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought this up in school today, while sitting alone during lunch contemplating the world: A single blade of grass can change the entire course of galactic history.

Scenario: A blade of grass is sitting on a window sill in New York City. The blade of grass falls off the sill, and lands in Central Park in a field of grass. This single blade of grass combines with the rest of the grass and causes the lawnmower person to decide to go through the mowing process an additional time. If the single blade of grass hadn't fallen, he wouldn't have decided to go an additional time. Because of this, smog is released from the lawnmower, heading into the air, giving one more person lung cancer. If that additional smog hadn't been released, that person wouldn't have gotten lung cancer. Because of this lung cancer, this person is not allowed to serve in the army during a massive war. The nation lost the war the a totalilarian dictator, who procceded to conquer the rest of the world. They could've won the war if they had had one more additional soldier. This government lasts a long time, and the government implies that space technology must be advanced. Therefore, Earth is the first planet in the galaxy to obtain excellent space travel. The Earth then becomes the totalarian dictator of the entire galaxy because they were the first to get all technology. And this is all because a single blade of grass fell in Central Park. Doesn't it unnerve you thinking that a single blade of grass can make such a difference?

Doesn't in unnerve you thinking that a single blade of grass can make such a difference?

Not really. If a blade of grass can do that, imagine how much of a difference a single life well-lived can make?

I thought this up in school today, while sitting alone during lunch contemplating the world: A single blade of grass can change the entire course of galactic history.

Scenario: A blade of grass is sitting on a window sill in New York City. The blade of grass falls off the sill, and lands in Central Park in a field of grass. This single blade of grass combines with the rest of the grass and causes the lawnmower person to decide to go through the mowing process an additional time. If the single blade of grass hadn't fallen, he wouldn't have decided to go an additional time. Because of this, smog is released from the lawnmower, heading into the air, giving one more person lung cancer. If that additional smog hadn't been released, that person wouldn't have gotten lung cancer. Because of this lung cancer, this person is not allowed to serve in the army during a massive war. The nation lost the war the a totalilarian dictator, who procceded to conquer the rest of the world. They could've won the war if they had had one more additional soldier. This government lasts a long time, and the government implies that space technology must be advanced. Therefore, Earth is the first planet in the galaxy to obtain excellent space travel. The Earth then becomes the totalarian dictator of the entire galaxy because they were the first to get all technology. And this is all because a single blade of grass fell in Central Park. Doesn't in unnerve you thinking that a single blade of grass can make such a difference?
I think you should start/stop smoking pot at lunch.:p

I thought this up in school today, while sitting alone during lunch contemplating the world: A single blade of grass can change the entire course of galactic history.

Doesn't in unnerve you thinking that a single blade of grass can make such a difference?
No. Even if it were true, there’s nothing we can do about it.
Now go out and get some friends for non-existent God’s sake.

I think you should start/stop smoking pot at lunch.:p
Think of the friends he could make!

Losing a war because you were short one soldier? Not likely. :p

A butterfly in tokyo flaps its wings three times instead of four, and it rains in central park.

Butterfly effect of chaos theory.

I believe that's called "the butterfly effect", in that the flap of a butterfly's wings could cause a tornado eventually. Tis why we couldn't predict the weather beyond two weeks or so even with absolutely perfect inputs.

While I don't think a single blade of grass would cause someone to re-mow the lawn, it is something interesting to think about. I kind of agree with what HotRodia said, that a single well lived life can make that much more of a difference.:)

A butterfly in tokyo flaps its wings three times instead of four, and it rains in central park.

Butterfly effect of chaos theory.

Darn, beaten to it.

Losing a war because you were short one soldier? Not likely. :p
Also not likely that a young person healthy enough to serve in the military would get lung cancer because of a little extra smoke.

Losing a war because you were short one soldier? Not likely. :p
It's possible.

And I've never heard of this "butterfly effect". I should research it. Seems someone thinks like me...

in that the flap of a butterfly's wings could cause a tornado eventually..
Now how does that make any sense at all?

Also not likely that a young person healthy enough to serve in the military would get lung cancer because of a little extra smoke.
It is very possible. All of the smoke adds up. Just that one little extra puff of smoke could cross the threshold, thereby giving that one person who would've made all the difference in the war lung cancer.

Now how does that make any sense at all?
One more little gust of wind. It all adds up my friend, it all adds up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

It's possible.

The odds are so small, they're nonexistant. I wouldn't even consider that as a possible option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Thank you.

I am now quoting (paraphrasing is a better word) someone.

"That uninentional foot print left in the sand, that one word uttered, that one flash of an eyelash, it can all utterly change the course of history."

It is very possible. All of the smoke adds up. Just that one little extra puff of smoke could cross the threshold, thereby giving that one person who would've made all the difference in the war lung cancer.
But if he was young and healthy enough to be a good soldier, he wouldn't get lung cancer from polution, at least not until much later in life.
One more little gust of wind. It all adds up my friend, it all adds up.
Tiny gusts of wind don’t transverse oceans and end up in storm systems in the mid-west, and even if they did, they wouldn’t make much of a difference on the winds occurring in the area due to local pressure changes.
The reason we can’t predict the weather perfectly is because its random in and of itself, it needs no butterflies.

I am now quoting (paraphrasing is a better word) someone.

"That uninentional foot print left in the sand, that one word uttered, that one flash of an eyelash, it can all utterly change the course of history."
Name one time that has happened.

Name one time that has happened.

How about Rosa Parks refusing to get up from her bus seat for a white man? That ended up sparking the civil rights movement.

Name one time that has happened.
It is happening all the time. We obviously don't realize it is happening, as we don't take record of every breath, every step. But all the small things eventually add up. A student is becoming aggravated at oppisition to his beliefs. One person near him utters the word "God", and this, along with all the other aggravation towards his beliefs, finally add up and cause him to do something of a Columbine. With this tragedy, stricter gun limitations are imposed. Then, while most of the army is away fighting a war, we are invaded. If we the common populace had owned guns, they would've been able to fight off the invaders. But because of that one word uttered, all is now gone.

But if he was young and healthy enough to be a good soldier, he wouldn't get lung cancer from polution, at least not until much later in life.

Tiny gusts of wind don’t transverse oceans and end up in storm systems in the mid-west, and even if they did, they wouldn’t make much of a difference on the winds occurring in the area due to local pressure changes.
The reason we can’t predict the weather perfectly is because its random in and of itself, it needs no butterflies.
Yes, but it DOES make a difference, no matter how small. If there were no small differences made, then it would be impossible for the big differences to be made, therefore nothing will happen.

It is happening all the time. We obviously don't realize it is happening, as we don't take record of every breath, every step. But all the small things eventually add up. A student is becoming aggravated at oppisition to his beliefs. One person near him utters the word "God", and this, along with all the other aggravation towards his beliefs, finally add up and cause him to do something of a Columbine. With this tragedy, stricter gun limitations are imposed. Then, while most of the army is away fighting a war, we are invaded. If we the common populace had owned guns, they would've been able to fight off the invaders. But because of that one word uttered, all is now gone.

In the words of a good friend of mine:

Stop fabricating rambling stories.

And in my wise words:

Get off the pot. :D

Tiny gusts of wind don’t transverse oceans and end up in storm systems in the mid-west, and even if they did, they wouldn’t make much of a difference on the winds occurring in the area due to local pressure changes.
The reason we can’t predict the weather perfectly is because its random in and of itself, it needs no butterflies.

It's not random, it's just that over time, things add up. And if we predict further than to weeks, simply the fact that people know about the prediction and might change their behavior slightly messes up the predictions beyond that point. The butterfly doesn't just flap up a tornado, but the extra air movement eventually leads to it.

It's not random, it's just that over time, things and up. And if we predict further than to weeks, simply the fact that people know about the prediction and might change their behavior slightly messes up the predictions beyond that point. The butterfly doesn't just flap up a tornado, but the extra air movement eventually leads to it.
These people obviously don't realize that small things add up. They think there's only big things that happen.

It's possible.

And I've never heard of this "butterfly effect". I should research it. Seems someone thinks like me...
actually, lots of people do...its a very well regarded concept.

The best known reference to it I can think of is in Jurassic Park...the mathematician (I can't think of the characters name) uses it, but uses it to interpret that all animals kept in zoos will escape and kill their captors....

These people obviously don't realize that small things add up. They think there's only big things that happen.

You're taking it to the extreme.

You're taking it to the extreme.

Taking what to the extreme? Admittedly, his story isn't exactly...coherent, but that's exactly how it works.

You're taking it to the extreme.
What you're techincally saying is something like this: If one person votes in an election it doesn't matter.

In fact it does. If everyone decides that, they decide they don't need to vote. Then there is voting. All the votes add up, my good man, they all add up. Just like all of the air movements add up. Just like all of the sand displacement adds up.

What you're techincally saying is something like this: If one person votes in an election it doesn't matter.

In fact it does. If everyone decides that, they decide they don't need to vote. Then there is voting. All the votes add up, my good man, they all add up. Just like all of the air movements add up. Just like all of the sand displacement adds up.

That's a lot different than saying that one missing soldier will turn the tide of a WHOLE WAR.

How about Rosa Parks refusing to get up from her bus seat for a white man? That ended up sparking the civil rights movement.
You mean Rosa Parks, active member of the NAACP, the same NAACP looking for the first opportunity to boycott?
Not that it wasn’t a great thing that group did, but it certainly was not a random occurrence. She herself has even committed on this, saying something to the effect that she wasn’t “tired” in the “I’m tired and need to sit down” sense; she was “tired” in the “sick and tired" sense.
Yes, but it DOES make a difference, no matter how small. If there were no small differences made, then it would be impossible for the big differences to be made, therefore nothing will happen.
I know you think you're being deep, but you're just being irational.
It's not random, it's just that over time, things add up. And if we predict further than to weeks, simply the fact that people know about the prediction and might change their behavior slightly messes up the predictions beyond that point. The butterfly doesn't just flap up a tornado, but the extra air movement eventually leads to it.
Now that makes sense.

Practical example...

Each day you get up and take the bus to work, which is on a 30 minute schedule. It take you 10 minutes to walk to the bus stop. On one day, you stop to help someone. You miss the bus by 10 seconds, and are late for work by 30 minutes.

That's a lot different than saying that one missing soldier will turn the tide of a WHOLE WAR.
But it can, my good man, it CAN! Say there is a company, defending a city. That company is one man short. Why? Because that one man is in a New York hospital having his cancer removed. Another company attacks the defending company. Because there is not that extra man there, just one more of the enemy survives, thereby allowing the attacking company to retake the city, which without, the army of the defending company now loses the war.

Naliitr you random fool!

I think my mexican thread made more sense than this.

[/GASP]

But it can, my good man, it CAN! Say there is a company, defending a city. That company is one man short. Why? Because that one man is in a New York hospital having his cancer removed. Another company attacks the defending company. Because there is not that extra man there, just one more of the enemy survives, thereby allowing the attacking company to retake the city, which without, the army of the defending company now loses the war.

Hey....buddy....one person does NOT capture a city.

Hey....buddy....one person does NOT capture a city.
No. I'm just saying, because one more person survived, the defending force saw the added up attacking forces, then ran, giving the city to the attackers. If that one person had been killed by Mr. Lung Cancer, then they wouldn't have retreated, keeping the city and winning the war, thereby assuring peace for Earth.

But it can, my good man, it CAN! Say there is a company, defending a city. That company is one man short. Why? Because that one man is in a New York hospital having his cancer removed. Another company attacks the defending company. Because there is not that extra man there, just one more of the enemy survives, thereby allowing the attacking company to retake the city, which without, the army of the defending company now loses the war.

You're going to the extreme again. As I said before...

ONE MAN MISSING DOES NOT MATTER.

If the guy happened to die before the battle, then that probably means that he wasn't meant to contribute to the war.

Scenario: A blade of grass is sitting on a window sill in New York City. The blade of grass falls off the sill, and lands in Central Park in a field of grass. This single blade of grass combines with the rest of the grass and causes the lawnmower person to decide to go through the mowing process an additional time. If the single blade of grass hadn't fallen, he wouldn't have decided to go an additional time. Because of this, smog is released from the lawnmower, heading into the air, giving one more person lung cancer. If that additional smog hadn't been released, that person wouldn't have gotten lung cancer. Because of this lung cancer, this person is not allowed to serve in the army during a massive war. The nation lost the war the a totalilarian dictator, who procceded to conquer the rest of the world. They could've won the war if they had had one more additional soldier. This government lasts a long time, and the government implies that space technology must be advanced. Therefore, Earth is the first planet in the galaxy to obtain excellent space travel. The Earth then becomes the totalarian dictator of the entire galaxy because they were the first to get all technology. And this is all because a single blade of grass fell in Central Park. Doesn't it unnerve you thinking that a single blade of grass can make such a difference?

I prefer the old rhyme:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

No. I'm just saying, because one more person survived, the defending force saw the added up attacking forces, then ran, giving the city to the attackers. If that one person had been killed by Mr. Lung Cancer, then they wouldn't have retreated, keeping the city and winning the war, thereby assuring peace for Earth.

"OMG there's 51 people! If there were only 50, we could defeat them. Retreat!" I can imagine the ways the butterfly effect works, I don't believe that's one of them.

You're going to the extreme again. As I said before...

ONE MAN MISSING DOES NOT MATTER.
But as I said before, they all add up. If no men were fighting, then obviously, the world would be different. But since all the men have added up, the world is yet again different. And because one man wasn't there to have the number of men in the army required to win the war, world history is changed. Why? Because of a blade of grass.

You're going to the extreme again. As I said before...

ONE MAN MISSING DOES NOT MATTER.

So, Napoleon, Julius Caeser or Shaka Zulu could all have been replaced by others without affecting the outcome of their campaigns?

But as I said before, they all add up. If no men were fighting, then obviously, the world would be different. But since all the men have added up, the world is yet again different. And because one man wasn't there to have the number of men in the army required to win the war, world history is changed. Why? Because of a blade of grass.

...Number of men really has very little to do with it, escpecially if we're talking about a difference of one. The tactics are far more important.

But as I said before, they all add up. If no men were fighting, then obviously, the world would be different. But since all the men have added up, the world is yet again different. And because one man wasn't there to have the number of men in the army required to win the war, world history is changed. Why? Because of a blade of grass.

I think you're smoking too much grass. :p

Ok, so you're saying that if one soldier was missing from WWII, then Hitler would have won. Very comforting, that is.

So, Napoleon, Julius Caeser or Shaka Zulu could all have been replaced by others without affecting the outcome of their campaigns?

No, but one soldier in their armies could be lost or replaced. Admittedly, this will have other effects in the long run, but it wont be the loss of a war.

So, Napoleon, Julius Caeser or Shaka Zulu could all have been replaced by others without affecting the outcome of their campaigns?

I'm talking about one man missing out of millions of soldiers. I am not referring to those people.

"OMG there's 51 people! If there were only 50, we could defeat them. Retreat!" I can imagine the ways the butterfly effect works, I don't believe that's one of them.

Would you consider your odds better in a fight if you had twelve people on your side, or if you had thirteen?

So, Napoleon, Julius Caeser or Shaka Zulu could all have been replaced by others without affecting the outcome of their campaigns?
That is something as I have been trying to say. Imagine, that in France, one nail is missing from a walkway. Because of that, a young Napoleon crosses the walkway, breaks the walkway, and his chest is penetrated by wood. All because of one nail missing. One nail.

I'm talking about one man missing out of millions of soldiers. I am not referring to those people.

By what criterion are they not 'one man missing out of millions* of soldiers'?


* or more probably 'tens of thousands' or even 'hundreds of thousands'.

Would you consider your odds better in a fight if you had twelve people on your side, or if you had thirteen?

Compare one missing out of a group of 13, and compare one missing out of a group of millions. Much different.

I think you're smoking too much grass. :p

Ok, so you're saying that if one soldier was missing from WWII, then Hitler would have won. Very comforting, that is.
But it is so very possible. And as I said, isn't it unnerving to think that something as simple as a blade of grass, or a missing nail can change the course of human history?

That is something as I have been trying to say. Imagine, that in France, one nail is missing from a walkway. Because of that, a young Napoleon crosses the walkway, breaks the walkway, and his chest is penetrated by wood. All because of one nail missing. One nail.

Oh, my god. This is too far. WAY too far.

Would you consider your odds better in a fight if you had twelve people on your side, or if you had thirteen?

I'd find it negligible. I'd be far more worried about my weaponry, ammunition, and strategic position. and if I'm between 12 and 13 people, i don't think I have anything to do with a war.

Compare one missing out of a group of 13, and compare one missing out of a group of millions. Much different.
Yes but look at my example. Say that those 13 attacking won the battle because the defending had 12 because of Mr. Lung Cancer. They would've secured the city, thereby letting the "evil empire" to win the war.

But it is so very possible. And as I said, isn't it unnerving to think that something as simple as a blade of grass, or a missing nail can change the course of human history?

It's not. It's how everything works. A small speck of dust probably determined the position of the Earth and whether or not we're all alive right now.

Yes but look at my example. Say that those 13 attacking won the battle because the defending had 12 because of Mr. Lung Cancer. They would've secured the city, thereby letting the "evil empire" to win the war.

If any force has that few people, they should be shot. By me. :p

Yes but look at my example. Say that those 13 attacking won the battle because the defending had 12 because of Mr. Lung Cancer. They would've secured the city, thereby letting the "evil empire" to win the war.

yeah...13 people don't secure a city either, and if these two teams fought on equal ground, you my have a couple on one side left if you're lucky.

It's not. It's how everything works. A small speck of dust probably determined the position of the Earth and whether or not we're all alive right now.
Then why are you disagreeing with me? That's what I've been trying to say. One speck of dust can completely change world and galactic history. That's what you've just sayed, and don't deny it.

Compare one missing out of a group of 13, and compare one missing out of a group of millions. Much different.

Possibly, but if that extra man means that the squad can hold its position, rather than rout, then it might be the case that its platoon can also hold its position, and that might mean that the company can hold its position, and that might mean that the regiment can hold its position, and that might mean that the division can hold its position...


Or, we could just remember Horatius holding the bridge.

That is something as I have been trying to say. Imagine, that in France, one nail is missing from a walkway. Because of that, a young Napoleon crosses the walkway, breaks the walkway, and his chest is penetrated by wood. All because of one nail missing. One nail.

Yes, yes, we get it. small changes can have massive effects. Geez, even Hollywood got this part right.

Plus, you never will get to see how this particular no-show-soldier performed. For all we know, he could have shot the dictator therby ending the war (kinda). ahh, another example, that one bullet ended the war.

Then why are you disagreeing with me? That's what I've been trying to say. One speck of dust can completely change world and galactic history. That's what you've just sayed, and don't deny it.

Yeah, it can, but the problem lies in the one missing soldier does not determine a war.

yeah...13 people don't secure a city either, and if these two teams fought on equal ground, you my have a couple on one side left if you're lucky.
Ok then, it's a pass. And somehow that pass completely affected the outcome of the war. One more bullet was able to get to the front, allowing one more enemy to be killed, thereby causing the death toll to add up in front of the enemy, with that last man dieing causing them to decide to run, thereby causing them to lose a strategic position, thereby causing them to lose the war. One blade of grass...

I'd find it negligible. I'd be far more worried about my weaponry, ammunition, and strategic position. and if I'm between 12 and 13 people, i don't think I have anything to do with a war.

Isn't a squad the basic unit of current military operations?

Plus, you never will get to see how this particular no-show-soldier performed. For all we know, he could have shot the dictator therby ending the war (kinda). ahh, another example, that one bullet ended the war.

Because dictators run out onto the front lines.

Because dictators run out onto the front lines.

You never know...

Isn't a squad the basic unit of current military operations?

Yeah, but if I'm defending a key point, I'll have about two metric fucktons more men that a dozen or a baker's dozen.

For people who do not know what the Chaos Theory is...

theory of apparent randomness: a theory that complex natural systems obey certain rules but are so sensitive that small initial changes can cause unexpected final effects, thus giving an impression of randomness.

Yeah, it can, but the problem lies in the one missing soldier does not determine a war.
Oh, but he can but he can. That one man could end up being the determining general in a war, or he could be the one to kill the dictator, or he could be the one to carry the flag into the final battle, going all the way even though he's been shot ten times, inspiring the troops into a battle rush, winning the war.

For people who do not know what the Chaos Theory is...

theory of apparent randomness: a theory that complex natural systems obey certain rules but are so sensitive that small initial changes can cause unexpected final effects, thus giving an impression of randomness.

You just described the butterfly effect, a part of chaos theory.

Plus, you never will get to see how this particular no-show-soldier performed. For all we know, he could have shot the dictator therby ending the war (kinda). ahh, another example, that one bullet ended the war.

Stop fabricating. Here's an example.

I notice that a girl seems to be very upset. I decide not to talk to her, and she ends up killing herself the next day. Even if I had talked to her, I would not have defeated the cause of her depression, and she still would have committed suicide anyway. Because of her death, cancer is not cured (she happened to have been the person who WOULD have cured cancer). And, because of that, I end up getting cancer, and I die before I assume my rightful role as leader of the entire world under a communist banner. And, because I do not become leader and unite the world for one cause, WWIII erupts and the world ends in nuclear armageddon(sp?).

Come on. Be sensible.

You are forgetting the thousands (more likely trillions) of other variables involved in an equation this complex.

To think that a butterfly is the only reason Hong Kong gets rain instead of sunshine is ridiculous.

Oh, but he can but he can. That one man could end up being the determining general in a war, or he could be the one to kill the dictator, or he could be the one to carry the flag into the final battle, going all the way even though he's been shot ten times, inspiring the troops into a battle rush, winning the war.

*sigh* How about this? The soldier gets TB, and him and his entire "camp" thing are quarentined?

For people who do not know what the Chaos Theory is...

theory of apparent randomness: a theory that complex natural systems obey certain rules but are so sensitive that small initial changes can cause unexpected final effects, thus giving an impression of randomness.


That's what many NASA scientists are thinking, that over time if enough force is applied it can travel near the speed of light. This force be Anti-Matter (which is a whole other physics lesson alltogether).

Yeah, but if I'm defending a key point, I'll have about two metric fucktons more men that a dozen or a baker's dozen.

Yes, and those two metric fuckloads will be dependent on each other: the loss of a single listening post might not seem significant, but it might be the start of the breach in your defenses, allowing your supporting fire to be disrupted and your forces eventually driven from the field of battle, whereas if that listening post had been just slightly better manned (if only by an individual), then it could have withheld just a minute or two longer, thus allowing you to send reinforcements before it was too late, and so hold the line.

Stop fabricating. Here's an example.

I notice that a girl seems to be very upset. I decide not to talk to her, and she ends up killing herself the next day. Even if I had talked to her, I would not have defeated the cause of her depression, and she still would have committed suicide anyway. Because of her death, cancer is not cured (she happened to have been the person who WOULD have cured cancer). And, because of that, I end up getting cancer, and I die before I assume my rightful role as leader of the entire world under a communist banner. And, because I do not become leader and unite the world for one cause, WWIII erupts and the world ends in nuclear armageddon(sp?).

Come on. Be sensible.
But if you HAD talked to that girl, you could've been that one last block on the road out of depression, and allowed her to be happy again, thereby curing cancer and allowing you to take your rightful role as the leader of the world.

You are forgetting the thousands (more likely trillions) of other variables involved in an equation this complex.

To think that a butterfly is the only reason Hong Kong gets rain instead of sunshine is ridiculous.


-_-

NO! It's not the only factor! The point is that there's millions of seemingly negligible factors that, if slightly altered, cause huge effects; over a reasonable period of time.

You are forgetting the thousands (more likely trillions) of other variables involved in an equation this complex.

To think that a butterfly is the only reason Hong Kong gets rain instead of sunshine is ridiculous.

Yes, but the butterfly is one of those trillions of variables. Without it, who knows how differently the equation can come out!

Yes, and those two metric fuckloads will be dependent on each other: the loss of a single listening post might not seem significant, but it might be the start of the breach in your defenses, allowing your supporting fire to be disrupted and your forces eventually driven from the field of battle, whereas if that listening post had been just slightly better manned (if only by an individual), then it could have withheld just a minute or two longer, thus allowing you to send reinforcements before it was too late, and so hold the line.

I'd certain have listen-post replacements, being so crucial and all.

Stop fabricating. Here's an example.

I notice that a girl seems to be very upset. I decide not to talk to her, and she ends up killing herself the next day. Even if I had talked to her, I would not have defeated the cause of her depression, and she still would have committed suicide anyway. Because of her death, cancer is not cured (she happened to have been the person who WOULD have cured cancer). And, because of that, I end up getting cancer, and I die before I assume my rightful role as leader of the entire world under a communist banner. And, because I do not become leader and unite the world for one cause, WWIII erupts and the world ends in nuclear armageddon(sp?).

Come on. Be sensible.


:D good one

But if you HAD talked to that girl, you could've been that one last block on the road out of depression, and allowed her to be happy again, thereby curing cancer and allowing you to take your rightful role as the leader of the world.

With my luck with women, she probably would have become more depressed by seeing me try to talk to her. :p

But, there are so many factors that would affect my global domination that it would be impossible to attribute my failure to her, and only her, dying.

With my luck with women, she probably would have become more depressed by seeing me try to talk to her. :p

But, there are so many factors that would affect my global domination that it would be impoosible to attribute my failure to her, and only her, dying.

The point isn't atributing everything to a single factor, it's that small changes in one factor can cause big changes later. Maybe there's one little thing in the past that could have stop you from even being born. One little thing.

I'd certain have listen-post replacements, being so crucial and all.

In other words the small squads and half-squads are important to you?

I'd certain have listen-post replacements, being so crucial and all.
But that's not the point! You're acting like you know what factor will determine everything. That's not the point of the butterfly effect. The point is that we don't know what factor determines everything. The point is that you don't have those replacements, and you don't have that one man that alters the tide of battle, thereby causing the war to be lost.

The point isn't atributing everything to a single factor, it's that small changes in one factor can cause big changes later. Maybe there's one little thing in the past that could have stop you from even being born. One little thing.
Yes, like a single speck of dust falling on your great-great-great-great-great grandfather, thereby making him that much weaker, thereby causing him to die when he falls on that spot.

But that's not the point! You're acting like you know what factor will determine everything. That's not the point of the butterfly effect. The point is that we don't know what factor determines everything. The point is that you don't have those replacements, and you don't have that one man that alters the tide of battle, thereby causing the war to be lost.

No, the point is that, with enough time, big things happen. the flapping of the butterfly's wings doesn't start a tornado tommorow, and war is something much more flexible and controlled, prepared to deal with something as relatively insignifacant as the loss of a single soldier.

Yes, and those two metric fuckloads will be dependent on each other: the loss of a single listening post might not seem significant, but it might be the start of the breach in your defenses, allowing your supporting fire to be disrupted and your forces eventually driven from the field of battle, whereas if that listening post had been just slightly better manned (if only by an individual), then it could have withheld just a minute or two longer, thus allowing you to send reinforcements before it was too late, and so hold the line.

The military depends on redundancy. If one goes down, it is likely that the slack can and will be picked up elsewhere. And if reinforcements are only a minute behind, they can round up the survivors and push back. Unless in that minute the enemy deploys a tactical nuke. Which you can't really stop anywhow.

@Dinaverg: Equations with multiple variables, especially with a bunch of small, insignificant ones, are hard-pressed to come out dramatically different if you change one, single thing. However, if you can show me such an equation, then I will retract that statement. I will not, however, regard chaos theory as anything more than the pursuit of "what if?" What possible practical purpose does it serve, anyway, except to add more trivia to the Internet and textbooks?

In other words the small squads and half-squads are important to you?

If it true as you say the loss of a single listen post can turn the tide of a war, I'm going to have a guy ready to go and listen right away so said tide-turning doesn't happen.

No, the point is that, with enough time, big things happen. the flapping of the butterfly's wings doesn't start a tornado tommorow, and war is something much more flexible and controlled, prepared to deal with something as relatively insignifacant as the loss of a single soldier.

Little events can cause big change, yes. I agree with this person.

But saying that a speck of dust can kill someone? That's just going too far, and beyond the realm of reason.

I see that I'm not the only one who is too weary of change to admit that one little thing could alter the course of history. Honestly, though, I know that what's done is done, and therefore I don't care.

I do, however find it hard to imagine that "A Galactic Empire" is even possible to ever achieve. Space ships would be far too fragile to ever fight with. Flying between planets would take years. I'm happy right here on Earth, knowing that there is no other intelligent life, and that blades of grass created the world I live in today. ;)

The military depends on redundancy. If one goes down, it is likely that the slack can and will be picked up elsewhere. And if reinforcements are only a minute behind, they can round up the survivors and push back. Unless in that minute the enemy deploys a tactical nuke. Which you can't really stop anywhow.

@Dinaverg: Equations with multiple variables, especially with a bunch of small, insignificant ones, are hard-pressed to come out dramatically different if you change one, single thing. However, if you can show me such an equation, then I will retract that statement. I will not, however, regard chaos theory as anything more than the pursuit of "what if?" What possible practical purpose does it serve, anyway, except to add more trivia to the Internet and textbooks?

Yes, but what if that slack cannot be picked up because there is one soldier less than the required in order for reinforcements to be sent?

Little events can cause big change, yes. I agree with this person.

But saying that a speck of dust can kill someone? That's just going too far, and beyond the realm of reason.

yes, but that speck along with trillions of other specks of dust could kill a person. see how it works?

@Dinaverg: Equations with multiple variables, especially with a bunch of small, insignificant ones, are hard-pressed to come out dramatically different if you change one, single thing. However, if you can show me such an equation, then I will retract that statement. I will not, however, regard chaos theory as anything more than the pursuit of "what if?" What possible practical purpose does it serve, anyway, except to add more trivia to the Internet and textbooks?


If you'd like to check to wiki article I posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
And read it, it gives just such an example, if you direct your attention to the lower images:
These figures show two segments of the three-dimensional evolution of two trajectories (one in blue, the other in yellow) for the same period of time in the Lorenz attractor starting at two initial points that differ only by 10^-5 in the x-coordinate. Initially, the two trajectories seem coincident, as indicated by the small difference between the z coordinate of the blue and yellow trajectories, but for t > 23 the difference is as large as the value of the trajectory. The final position of the cones indicates that the two trajectories are no longer coincident at t=30.

yes, but that speck along with trillions of other specks of dust could kill a person. see how it works?
But they don't believe in addition!

Yes, but what if that slack cannot be picked up because there is one soldier less than the required in order for reinforcements to be sent?

What are you talking about? "Oh, well, we need 50 people to send reinforcements, and we only have 49. Screw them"

Yes, but what if that slack cannot be picked up because there is one soldier less than the required in order for reinforcements to be sent?

There is no requirement for reinforcements to be sent. And how would anyone know how many soldiers they actually had? What are they going to do, count them in the middle of a battlezone?

Soldier 1: Holy crap, we need backup!
Soldier 2: Well, how many do we have? Do we qualify?
Soldier 1: I don't know!
Soldier 2: Well, line them up and count!
Soldier 1: But, it's the middle of a battlezone!
Soldier 2: Meh, those are the rules.

yes, but that speck along with trillions of other specks of dust could kill a person. see how it works?

No.

But saying that a speck of dust can kill someone? That's just going too far, and beyond the realm of reason.

Not really, it just might take a while. And yanno, one missing person could affect the next war, several decades from then, but not one soldier in one army in the war right now.

Not really, it just might take a while. And yanno, one missing person could affect the next war, several decades from then, but not one soldier in one army in the war right now.

Finally, backup.

Yes, but what if that slack cannot be picked up because there is one soldier less than the required in order for reinforcements to be sent?

Are you saying...

That if the commander at a forward outpost lacked one man, he would not help his counterpart at the front? ._.

@Dinaverg: I stand corrected. But can you apply it in life?

@Dinaverg: I stand corrected. But can you apply it in life?


I figure it's most applicable in weather forcasting. Admittedly, we can't tell exatly what it waas that caused it, but as I said previously. We can't forecast beyond about two weeks becuase after that point, the minescule changes in people's behavior from simply knowing the weather causes the future weather to change. Even seen a movie or something where knowing the future made the future happen? In this case, knowing the future changes the future. If we were to forecast the weather on a different planet however, we would technically not affect it, and could predict indefinitely, although it's likely we'd still make something happen, even if it's millenia from now.

Not really, it just might take a while. And yanno, one missing person could affect the next war, several decades from then, but not one soldier in one army in the war right now.

!Danger! Sorites Paradox! !Danger!

Any army minus one man is still an army of equal strength to the original army.
Ergo, that army minus one man is still of equal strength to the original army.
Ergo, that army minus one man is still of equal strength to the original army.

...

Ergo, that army with no people left in it is still of equal strength to the original army.

!Danger! Sorites Paradox! !Danger!

Any army minus one man is still an army of equal strength to the original army.
Ergo, that army minus one man is still of equal strength to the original army.
Ergo, that army minus one man is still of equal strength to the original army.

...

Ergo, that army with no people left in it is still of equal strength to the original army.

I didn't say it was equal, I said, or at least implyied that it was negligible. You'll generally disregard the weight of electrons, are you going to say that means they have no mass? Plan on trotting out Zeno's little riddle next?

I didn't say it was equal, I said, or at least implyied that it was negligible.

A case of equivocation: you claimed that they could not affect the war -

And yanno, one missing person could affect the next war, several decades from then, but not one soldier in one army in the war right now.

You may have intended this to mean that that their effect would be a negligible difference, but that isn't how it read, however the problem is that some individuals by accident of history end up having a far greater effect on the course of wars than others - for example Michael Wittman, or the commander of the KV-2 at Ostrov.





As far as the sophistry goes, I did clearly label it as a named paradox, and so it is hardly as if I was trying to sneak it under the radar.

A case of equivocation: you claimed that they could not affect the war -



You may have intended this to mean that that their effect would be a negligible difference, but that isn't how it read, however the problem is that some individuals by accident of history end up having a far greater effect on the course of wars than others - for example Michael Wittman, or the commander of the KV-2 at Ostrov.





As far as the sophistry goes, I did clearly label it as a named paradox, and so it is hardly as if I was trying to sneak it under the radar.

*sigh* When refering to a soldier, his prescence or absence, and his only, will not turn a victory for one side into a victory for the other.

Like that one day that Ekaterina Geladze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekaterina_Geladze) decided not to fake a headache. One little thing can cause monumental change later on, if it's the right little thing.

*sigh* When refering to a soldier, his prescence or absence, and his only, will not turn a victory for one side into a victory for the other.

So I can lie back in relative safety in the motherland secure in the knowledge that if everybody else goes to war, I don't have to?

actually, lots of people do...its a very well regarded concept.

The best known reference to it I can think of is in Jurassic Park...the mathematician (I can't think of the characters name) uses it, but uses it to interpret that all animals kept in zoos will escape and kill their captors....

Wikipedia? Read more carefully.

Like that one day that Ekaterina Geladze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekaterina_Geladze) decided not to fake a headache. One little thing can cause monumental change later on, if it's the right little thing.

There is no mention of a headache anywhere in this article.

There is no mention of a headache anywhere in this article.

Yes, because she didn't fake one: that was the whole point.

Yes, because she didn't fake one: that was the whole point.

How would faking a headache change the course of history?

I made a mistake in resurrecting this thread, didn't I? :p

So I can lie back in relative safety in the motherland secure in the knowledge that if everybody else goes to war, I don't have to?

Well, your being there or not being there alone, wouldn't change the outcome of the war. So yes.

So a logical method of tornado prevention (at least partially), is to kill every last butterfly...Mwahahahaha...

Maybe if I travelled back in time, tapped Hitler's dad's shoulder in the street, reulting in him copulating with his wife a second later (by which time his sperm would be in a slightly different arrangement), and the hitler gamete would never reach the egg. Instead a girl they call Adolfina is born, who then becomes a succesfull baker starting the popular "Hitler's homemade cakes" brand. :D

You heard it here first.

So a logical method of tornado prevention (at least partially), is to kill every last butterfly...Mwahahahaha...

Maybe if I travelled back in time, tapped Hitler's dad's shoulder in the street, reulting in him copulating with his wife a second later (by which time his sperm would be in a slightly different arrangement), and the hitler gamete would never reach the egg. Instead a girl they call Adolfina is born, who then becomes a succesfull baker starting the popular "Hitler's homemade cakes" brand. :D

You heard it here first.

Of course, there's also all the other things that would have happened, by your simply being there in that time period. but yeah, that would probably work.

Because dictators run out onto the front lines.
What about the Battle of Hastings? The following centuries of history between England and Frace were filled with wars over whether or not having William the Conqueror (a Frenchman) in charge of England made England French. And the battle could have easily been won because Harold was shot in the eye. Had he not been shot, who knows?

You make too many assumptions.

What about the Battle of Hastings? The following centuries of history between England and Frace were filled with wars over whether or not having William the Conqueror (a Frenchman) in charge of England made England French. And the battle could have easily been won because Harold was shot in the eye. Had he not been shot, who knows?
Also, did you know that there was a British Officer who was about to snipe George Washington (The leader of the American Revolution), but he decided against it because he thought it wasn't "gentleman like". What if that shot had been taken because somewhere along his life he saw something which he therefore decided not to be "gentleman like"? How would the war have changed?

Little things can make a big difference. My favorite anecdote is how taking the wrong street triggered WWI:


...
Discussions were held as to whether to change the rest of Franz Ferdinand's schedule. The Archduke did not wish to cancel his visit to the museum and lunch at the Governor's residence, but wished to alter his plans to include a visit to Merizzi in the hospital.
The same motorcade set out along the Appel Quay, but neither the Mayor's driver, nor Franz Ferdinand's driver had been informed of the change in schedule. This would have been Merizzi's job.
The young assassins had counted on succeeding on the first attempt. With no assurance that Franz Ferdinand would follow his original itinerary, the remaining assassins took up various other positions along the Appel Quay. Gavrilo Princip crossed the Appel Quay and strolled down Franz Joseph Street. He stepped into Moritz Schiller's food store to get a sandwich. As he emerged, he met a friend who inquired about a mutual friend.

The Wrong Turn

The Mayor's car, followed by Franz Ferdinand's car turned off the Appel Quay and onto Franz Joseph Street, as originally planned, to travel to the museum. General Potoirek leaned forward. "What is this? This is the wrong way! We're supposed to take the Appel Quay!" The driver put on the brakes and began to back up. Franz Ferdinand's car stopped directly in front of Schiller's store -- five feet away from Princip.

The Shots

Princip was quick to recognize what had happened. He pulled the pistol from his pocket, took a step towards the car and fired twice. General Potoirek happened to look directly at Princip as he fired. He thought the gun's report unusually soft. Both Franz Ferdinand and Sophie were still sitting upright. Potoirek thought the shots had missed, but given the assult, ordered the driver to drive directly to the Governor's residence.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/comment/sarajevo.html