The Butterly Effect, the straw that breaks the camel's back, both overlook key forces.
The Butterfly Effect is taken to mean a butterfly or say a twig falling in a remote rainforest can trigger a chain of events leading to a significantly more dramatic event such as a hurricane. The gist of the butterfly effect also is commonly used in a social context such as a person going back in time and dramatically altering the course of history simply by killing just one ordinary person. The concept of the butterfly effect has two important shortcomings. 1) we live in a stable universe – if you push on it, the universe pushes back. 2) there are many dissipative processes at play – these retard and resist any progressively stronger reactions.
Major dramatic occurrences such as a hurricane or an earthquake require tremendous amount of input energy. If a twig falling in a remote distant land could trigger a chain of additional events, then operating a couple jet engines at that location would generate forces that are many orders of magnitude stronger, guarantying the expected hurricane. However, the energy and forces of jet engines are dissipated in the atmosphere and do not trigger large consequences. Similarly, a man operating a jackhammer right over an earthquake fault line is insufficient to start the quake. Much greater forces are at play, including tidal forces from the Moon and Sun. Earth’s landmasses rise and fall daily similar to the oceans, but much less dramatically. Tidal forces are again much larger than anything that could be done by a single individual, especially since Earth’s crust dissipates all of the energy on the scale of a jackhammer.
The straw that breaks the camel’s back is taken to mean keep adding inconsequential weight such as a single piece of straw onto the back of a camel. At some point, adding just one more piece will become too much for the camel to bear, breaking his back. This is a valid argument under perfectly static conditions. Unfortunately, perfectly static conditions do not exist, except in a carefully controlled laboratory and then only with inanimate objects. In this case, there are dynamical forces operating. The camel is bound to shift his weight on his feet, is breathing, and there is probably external factors such as wind. All of these factors increase substantially the stress to the camel’s back, reducing the load that the camel can tolerate. (I know this is a bit of a knit, but arguments about static conditions represent an upper limit estimate, and usually a limit that is rather lax.)
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I agree about the butterfly effect being not totally legit, but that doesn't mean that I don't have a huge warm spot in my heart for Bradbury's The Sound of Thunder - the first story I ever read that made me catch my breath in surprise at the ending, and the standard by which all other stories, whether heard, read, or watched, are held. I want the "OH" feeling. The plunging down a roller coaster surprise. Sixth Sense - like that. But when I think about the actual butterfly effect, I figure, like say Hitler had not been born, somebody would have filled that void. That void was created so hugely. And so on.
Jenmcjen
Level 6
May 12, 2018
0
@TheAstroChuck "Never doubt that a small group of dedicated individuals can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has!"
I respectfully disagree. It took the actions of a single moronic, insecure leader to cause World War 1. Also, President Kennedy basically prevented another World War almost single-handedly.
Individuals can and do frequently create major changes in the fabric of History. Despite the challenges that Germany faced before World War II, a compassionate intelligent, and peaceful, leader could have dramatically changed History as we know it.
EDIT: one thing to keep in mind is that most things in life happen at exponential scales. At one time in our long distant past, there were maybe as few as a few hundred people on earth. It wouldn't even be an argument as to whether this very small group of people changed the world simply by reproducing!
However wide acceptance of the Butterfly effect would in this world probably result in president Cheeto declaring war on weather terrorist butterflies everywhere and his building a huge net over the USA.
The straw that broke the camel's back will like wise result in the Health and safety executive making camels wear anti-straw back braces when engaged in agricultural labour or of them being banned from all hay, straw, grass and associate products production bases all together.
LenHazell53
Level 9
May 9, 2018
0
Chaos Theory is simple maths. There's no denying it any more than you can deny that there's an infinite supply of prime numbers or that pi is irrational. Certainly large parts of our world are modeled by stable equilibria. However that is not universally the case. Some systems are chaotic. This simply means that a small change in the input results in a large change in the output.
Here's an example. Say I was mathematically modeling a game of pooh sticks. We have a channel of water and the water is flowing in a regular non-chaotic manner. If I throw a twig into the water it hits the water at a specific spot at a specific time (that's the input) and I work out where it will be in 60 seconds time. (that's the output)
If I were to change the input location by one centimeter then the output would change in an easily predictable manner, and the smaller the change I made to the input, the smaller the change we'd see on the output.
However if the water running fast enough to become turbulent then chaos would rule. Change the input by less than an atom's width and the maths will throw out an entirely different result.
MattHardy
Level 7
May 8, 2018
4
Your interpretation of the butterfly effect is not which i have heard. The version which I endorse tyakes the position that in huge, multifaceted systems, such a the earth's weather, the beating of a butterfly's wings, at the right time and place, in conjunction with the confluence of other events and forces, can set into motion a chain of effects which creates huge changes -- such as a violent storm.
Your version comes directly from Ray Bradbury's short story, "The Sound of Thunder."
wordywalt
Level 9
May 8, 2018
3
@TheAstroChuck Yes, it is unlikely, but it can happen. You are discounting the whole concept of the uncertainty principle in the reality of bounded chaos. You haven't dispelled anything, but have merely stated a premise without proof. I would rather believe Lorenz.
What you've described is actually a correct understanding of the butterfly effect, as first described by MIT meteorologist Edward Lorenz.
Lorenz's actual finding was that tiny changes in an initial state (at the start of an experiment or weather record) can lead to enormous differences later, but that it's impossible to connect a particular initial change to a particular outcome change. The butterfly flapping its wings could cause a tornado or prevent one, and there is no way of knowing.
To put it another way, Lorenz's butterfly effect states that certain systems are simply not predictable, no matter how precise the initial measurements are.
cmadler
Level 7
May 8, 2018
3
Yes, there are many factors and dynamic forces affecting everything in the universe. Chaos theory involves a lot of these things. Why can't you balance a pencil on its point? This is the reason determinism fails at some point. There can be no absolute determinism. That is why when people assert that there can be no free will because of determinism they are wrong. At some point, probably at the quantum level chaos reigns.
DaveSchumacher
Level 7
May 8, 2018
2
@TheAstroChuck As I said, probably at the quantum level. But I sure don't know. When we have a unified field theory maybe we will understand this too.
@TheAstroChuck Bohr Correspondence Principle. The Bohr Correspondence Principle states that the predictions of quantum mechanics must match the predictions of classical physics in the physical situations that classical physics is intended to describe, and does describe very accurately. This principle has been around a long time, has it been verified in any experiments? Is it still viable in modern quantum physics? [physicstoday.scitation.org]
Absolutely agree, the “butterfly effect” only applies to non-linear systems where even small changes can have a drastic effect on the subsequent evolution of a system. My favorite example of this is given by the multiple pendulum: just a slight change in the other the starting velocity or position can drastically effect the subsequent evolution of the system; however, for a single pendulum small changes in the initial conditions don’t result in behavior that is too different.
It is important to understand when such systems are being dealt with and when a system is simply linear. It’s also important to understand under what parameters a system will operate in a linear fashion. Good post.
Wavefunction
Level 5
May 8, 2018
2
I think at least sometimes, these expressions are meant metaphorically, and not literally. But I agree with what you're saying.
Tomfoolery33
Level 9
May 8, 2018
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.