I was watching a teevee show this morning where they mentioned the “Butterfly Effect.” This is a part of chaos theory which postulates that a very small change in a system can result in a large difference in the eventual outcome. You may remember this from “Jurassic Park,” where, IIRC, Jeff Goldblum explains that a butterfly flaps its wings which kicks up a particle of dust which makes a wildebeest or something snort which spooks the herd which for some reason or other results in a hurricane or something. There are even mathematical equations and shit that explain it. Whatever. While fully acknowledging that I’m not a scientist (and didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night), I have to say that I think it’s a load of crap – the kind of oversimplified “sciencey” sounding pabulum that sounds good and appeals to the general movie-going population. At least in the way it’s presented in movies and popular culture. You see a variation of this in a lot of “time travel” type movies. You know, where the guy travels back to prehistoric times and steps on a flower, then returns the present and finds out the Nazis got “the bomb” first and won WWII.
I’m not saying that relatively small changes can have dramatic effects. Just that those changes need to rise above a certain level to overcome the “noise.” So the tiny breeze generated by our friend the butterfly flapping its wings is cancelled out by any number of other factors (other flapping insects, birds, whatever). Go slap that wildebeest on the ass, and maybe you’ve got something.
I believe Isaac Asimov addressed this in his 1958 short story “Lastborn” (later re-published as “The Ugly Little Boy”). And I’ll believe Asimov over Michael Crichton any day of the week.
But, anyway, what interests me more is that age-old time travel conundrum about going back in time and killing your grandfather (presumably by accident, as it would be a rather stupid thing to do on purpose). You know, it’s a paradox because if you did that they you wouldn’t exist, but then if you didn’t exist, you couldn’t go back to do that, so….
Not much of a paradox, IMHO, because, since you apparently do exist, clearly you never went back in time and killed your grandfather. I mean, duh. It’s right up there with saying there’s just got to be a God-type creator, ‘cuz everything on this planet evolved in precisely the right way to bring us where we are today (which is just confusing cause and effect – though if it makes people feel better, good for them).
Anyhow, what interests me is how far you’d have to go back to prevent you from existing (let’s leave existential and soul-type shit out of it, for the moment).
Rather than committing patricide, how about we just prevent our parents from meeting in the first place. Clearly, you wouldn’t be here. And if one set of your maternal grandparents never met, then your mother wouldn’t have been around to meet your father.
But what if, say, your g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grandmother hadn’t hooked up with your g8-grandfather, what would you be? I mean (all else being equal), there’d only be a tiny fraction of different inherited DNA in there.
Would there be any noticeable difference? Eye color? Affinity (or lack thereof) for seafood? Some recombination of recessive genes giving you cancer (or keeping you from getting it)? Would your thoughts be different? My guess is that a change that far back would fail to rise above the “noise” and you’d pretty much still be you.
Not that there’d be any way to tell.
Back in my family history, when my mother’s father’s mother’s mother (or something) came to Canada from Ireland with her fiancé, the little boat that brought the passengers to shore from the big boat (pardon my lack of nautical knowledge) overturned in rough seas. My would-be great-great-grandfather jumped in to save his future wife from drowning. She was saved. Him? Not so much.
Must have been tragic to witness your fiancé drown – only to abandon you, alone, in a strange country.
And out of that tragedy, I was spawned. Eventually. Had it gone down in any other way, I wouldn’t be here. Not as I am now, anyway (I am clearly lacking the “hero” gene, for one thing – and I bet I’d have a better back).
Speaking of my poor old back, time to go aggravate it trying to fix my tractor.
I read, and I believe I posted, that some scientists have ruled out the possibility of time travel because nothing can exceed the speed of light, which presumably one would have to do.
http://bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20110820west_memphis_3_are_freed_after_18_years_behind_bars
Yes, that was Chinese scientists. Of course, when one talks about time travel, one generally means to the past, or to the future and back again. We are clearly already moving forward in time, and one can slow down time by traveling at high velocity (one must take into account the velocity at which GPS satellites travel, for instance) or by being in a gravity well (again, satellites are farther from the Earth than we are, and so time for them is slower than it is for us – which also needs to be taken into account).
Well now, this is a rather interesting topic. I was just told by an actuary that my life expectancy is 12 years less than the norm. Y’al may remember a certain surgery I had a few years back that is the cause of this decline (I still remember your kindness with the amazing basket of plants/flowers you sent to me!!! :love: ). When I first heard this statistic it did not affect me. Then….the thought simmered…. Really?? This is almost it??? Well, damn, I better rethink a few things.
So there was a barrel maker on the Mayflower whose progeny met a Greek’s progeny (the Greek had immigrated to the US via Ellis Island at the age of 12 and married in an arranged marriage a young Greek woman who came to the US via Ellis Island) and this progeny dies at 72? Really?
I’m not terribly fond of actuaries. :crap:
Do actuaries take in to account technological advances in things such as cardiology? What about lifestyle?
My son-in-law (father of my only grandchildren) in Alaska is an actuary for the State of Alaska (go figure). I have not had the opportunity to speak to him recently, but I can’t help to believe that he must be thinking about his actuary role just a bit differently since experiencing a bout of melanoma at the age of 27 and our “best health care system in the world” to “treat” but not cure this condition.
He and my daughter fortunately resonate with a common sense approach of getting back to the basics as far as elimnating processed foods :crap: and eating locally grown (as much as that is possible in Alaska) foods. They are hugely blessed in that they have access to wild-caught Alaskan salmon most of the year and that helps a lot.
They also embraced all the Bernie Siegel and Mind-Body books I sent them. They decided to take the mainstream therapies but modified them with my recommendations and have been less than impressed with the drug/chemo route as opposed to common sense. S-I-L seems to be OK now and determined to be healthy. If my daughter has anything to say about it, he’s going to be around until he is a VERY old man! 😯
She does NOT fool around. She is a teacher, like SueP. :billcat: :yinyang:
Oh, and OKat — actuaries are FOS — Full Of Statistics, which as far as I am concerned is FO :crap: . Statistics say what the users of statistics want them to say. It’s not about truth, it’s about persuasion, so I’m always very wary about hearing “the studies support….” or “statistics prove ….” or whatever other b :crap: “truth” such “authorities” spout.
:fu: Authority — the 1960s in me is coming out!