The Butterfly effect.

Mojotronica

Expect Irony.
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
3,501
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
The nature of time is "stackable..." that is, every event that precedes another event by its nature supports the subsequent event, but not the reverse. In other words change the past and the future is also completely changed.

Each child born is a miracle of coincidence. A missed glance here, a missed bus there, an ill-timed headache -- any one of a billion -- no -- a trillion factors might have resulted in a child not being born. It was important that every event happened exactly the way it did in order for all of us to be sharing in this post today.

Most events of the past are pretty much neutral. Who cares if X met Y? But often people wax nostalgic about how much better things would be if some or all of histories great horrors had not occurred.

BUT any attrocities that happened before we are conceived might have led to events that were essential to our individual existence. We may not have ever been born if a certain negative event were averted. In fact, it's LIKELY we would not have been conceived, because what are the odds that our parents would have been in the exact same situation to spawn us given any notable change in the time-space continuum?

This means that (unwittingly) I had a vested interest in every sad story or atrocity of human history up until sometime in July of 1970, when I was conceived. The slaughter of the Native Americans and colonization of the New World, slavery, the Irish potato famine, the Civil War, the sinking of the Titanic, Nazi Germany's rise, the Holocaust, the use of the A-Bomb against Japan, segregation, JFK's assassination, the Vietnam war...

All of these events were almost certainly NECESSARY if I were to exist on this Earth. So in a sense I share in the sad event.

In fact, the younger one is the more really horrible events had to happen to bring about their existence, since w/ each passing year the number of negative events grows larger.
 
While it's true we ourselves may have indirectly benefitted from past atrocities, it doesn't mean we should seek those to achieve further benefits. But we are also at a vantage point to the past. We can learn from it's mistakes, learn from theese "sad" events and make sure they will not repeat. What we are protecting and improving is a very vague, but in the same time very real notion of humanity.

But one 19th century teosophist put it best - paraphrase:
"Not all events have immediate consequences. One event that happend after another does not imply the latter is derived from the former."
 
But then agian you also must realize that all those good events had to happen too! The moon landing, the rennesance, the civil rights movement, it's a two way street!
 
it all depends on if there is such a thing as "destiny" Mojo- if there is, then your entire surmizing is renderd mute, if there isnt, then to a point, IMO, your correct- I fail to see how all actions of the past builg to a future- for instnace, while I was reading this, I scratched my leg- I dont see any dire consequences fro the future coming from that, and most other actions, but rather only the interaction of people that has a real consequence....
 
Originally posted by Perfection
But then agian you also must realize that all those good events had to happen too! The moon landing, the rennesance, the civil rights movement, it's a two way street!

True dat -- but few fantasize about going back in time and preventing events that are regarded as positive from happening...

But I'm sure a number of people think it would have been better to prevent the Titanic from sinking, or simply to rescue all of it's passengers -- and if they were conceived after 1912, there's a good chance that doing so could have resulted in their NEVER being conceived. So in effect, most of us living today owe our existance to the sinking of the Titanic, and all those deaths.

So if we had the choice to save all those lives, we would probably not do so. Is it meaningless that we would make that choice? Most would intuitively think that the greater good would be to SAVE the Titanic, yet that would not be in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of those who exist in late 2003.

So which IS the greater good? Or the lesser of two evils? And if both posibilities are evil in some way (only one LESS so) does that imply that our very existance is somehow tainted?
 
Originally posted by Mojotronica

So which IS the greater good? Or the lesser of two evils? And if both posibilities are evil in some way (only one LESS so) does that imply that our very existance is somehow tainted?

As "good" is an entirely subjective term. I define it to mean beneficial to myself. Therefore, anything that resulted in my existance, which I of course require before I can do anything to benefit me, is "good".
 
It is true that most of us (most likely everyone) owe our lives to Hitler in that sense, but it would be some kind of very odd and dangerous religious approach to start thanking him for it.
 
I think Mojo is taking it a bit too far. The sinking of Titanic is a very recent, specific event. I am sure the majority of the people would still be born that are around now had the titanic been saved or never sunk. Hitlers rise to power is also be a specific event, that had immediant consequences. Now most would argue would war 2 was going to happen anyway, hitler just used it to his advantage. The more variables you add (WW2 vs Titanic), and when things happen (9-11 vs the fall of rome) can vary on thier impact upon the world.
 
Originally posted by croxis
I think Mojo is taking it a bit too far. The sinking of Titanic is a very recent, specific event. I am sure the majority of the people would still be born that are around now had the titanic been saved or never sunk. Hitlers rise to power is also be a specific event, that had immediant consequences. Now most would argue would war 2 was going to happen anyway, hitler just used it to his advantage. The more variables you add (WW2 vs Titanic), and when things happen (9-11 vs the fall of rome) can vary on thier impact upon the world.
Well think of this, you've got millions of sperm fighting for a chance to fertilize a human egg, if the person had sex maybe 2 seconds earlier because a person finished the newspaper quicker because a more boring news story it would give an advanatage to a neighboring sperm not the same one, and so a person as different as you are from your brother would form!

Minute details can have MAJOR effects!
 
Originally posted by Perfection
Minute details can have MAJOR effects!
On the other hand, earthshaking events, like say WW II, may have little or no effect. The case has been made that the flow of history has not been greatly altered by the conflict which killed millions. Few really significant changes, in political direction at least, occured because of the rise and fall of the Nazi party. Most of them have to do with the Middle East.

J
 
Originally posted by onejayhawk
On the other hand, earthshaking events, like say WW II, may have little or no effect. The case has been made that the flow of history has not been greatly altered by the conflict which killed millions. Few really significant changes, in political direction at least, occured because of the rise and fall of the Nazi party. Most of them have to do with the Middle East.
Ummm, the lack of millions of millions of people, and there thoughts and idea coupled with entirely different people being born would lead to a world that is quite different! You think in terms of groups of people not variation of people themselves!
 
Sad, but true. If my grandparents weren't captured by Nazis (or survived, or if there was a war, period) and sent ot the same camp, they would never have met (well, very slim chance). If the Soviets got to the camp before the Americans, they and their daughters (one being my mother) would never get to America via Belgium via West Germany at a British relocation camp. I might be older, someone different, speaking Polish, maybe a part of the Solidarity movement, any number of possibilities.


And that's just recent events on my mother's side.


Of course, I've thought about this too, especially where my grandparents met, because that is a big event, aside from my mother not being in America to find my father.
 
It is not a trillion different factors, but virtually infinite factors that decide, and thus it is virtually impossible for my existence, not just "likely that I wouldn't exist."
 
Therefore , we have to conclude that our existence is an infinitely improbable occurence , as each factor approaches infinity , and the number of facors also approach infinity .

Thus lies the proof that we , in reality (whatever that is ) , do not exist .
 
Top Bottom