The Butterfly Effect

[Jake Danger]

Chaos theory maintains that the world is so delicately balanced and interdeptendent that a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas can cause (or prevent) a typhoon in Japan a month later. I am wondering if this applies to the realm of human interaction as well? Perhaps every little thing we do is like throwing a snowball off a mountain that keeps on growing until it creates an avalanche. How could we take advantage of this concept in our own lives and the lives of others?

[Michael Chui]

Worth noting is the existence of two other theories of interest to people who don't know about the distinction: complexity theory and catastrophe theory. I won't presume to know enough to talk about them; I'd advise looking it up on your own.

With human interactions, I first note that "six degrees of separation" is not merely a buzzword. The actual resultant median from Milgram's letter-passing experiment was 5.5; the maximum was 12. So, to me, I think it's safe to say that anything I do that affects another person can conceivably and eventually affect everyone in the world. I can't control that result at the end of the chain, or even intermediately, but I can control the first link. So I do my utmost best to positively affect everything, and hopefully it'll ripple down the ties to everyone else.

[Waffle]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I can't control that result at the end of the chain, or even intermediately, but I can control the first link. So I do my utmost best to positively affect everything, and hopefully it'll ripple down the ties to everyone else.

I totally agree with this.
I really think all of us should try to lessen our damages to our surroundings, be more aware of our decisions...
No matter how small something can be, it will snowball in the long term and perhaps like what the saying, "what goes around, comes around" and " what goes up, must come down".

[andrius]

To create an avalanche by throwing a snowball one must be somewhere high in the mountains. Make sure you do some climbing before trying to affect the world by throwing snowballs.

[goodstyles]

Just going to be the antagonist for the fun

I also agree with the idea that small things, and almost in fact everything we do has repercussions that are so far down the line that it is impossible to track. But that said, once you, yourself, have acted, the control of the result is already very far beyond you. It's not quite just a case of lessening the damage to our surroundings that counts.

Everything we do has a potentially positive and negative effect on our surroundings. We flush the toilet, the refuse get dumped a few miles away into the ocean and washes up on someone else's lawn. We leave the light on down the hall, we spend a few pence more every month and in turn burn more fuels that sends off the pollutions to neighboring countries and then they feel the pinch. These are trivial 'practical' examples, but say, in relationships, being nice to one person may be positive, but depending on how their friend reacts, maybe they get jealous and have a bad day. They're rude to their other friend who in turn doesn't invite them to their house party. The friend finds out, goes a bit mad and the friendship falls apart. Just because you were nice to someone? Hehe, it's a really poor example, but it's nothing but an illustration of how quickly the control of the result of actions is an illusion and each seemingly positive action may have it's hidden negative. And vise versa.

Where am I going with this? I dunno...

Potentially anything we do has a negative impact on someone or something and you can't really limit the 'damage'. All you can do is act with integrity and know that as you perform any act it has no mal-intent and is as a result of considering your options and it's the best, as you see it, for yourself and all. The balance between yourself and all is a whole other question.

Anyways, I just thought I'd play devil's advocate with this one.

[Andrew Brunelle]

In a way, tihngs you do, no matter how insignificant they may seem, do affect others in a profound way. And there is this "rippling effect" that will possibly affect one person a lot, and then affect the next "degree of separation" less, and so on down the line, but the whole concept is that whatever you do, you're affecting people either way, so it would be best to use that power to bring peace and love into the world. Every time you complain about something to someone else, they may come to question that same thing and then call others to do the same. But butterflies are the best insects to watch any way you slice it.

[julien]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Worth noting is the existence of two other theories of interest to people who don't know about the distinction: complexity theory and catastrophe theory.

The latter was initiated by French mathematician Rene Thom, and is certainly out of reach of the layman.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by goodstyles

Anyways, I just thought I'd play devil's advocate with this one.

That's the great thing about this philosophy. You can't devil's advocate it. Notice that you've essentially reached the same conclusion by assuming the negative: that which you can control, do good.

[Keith]

<devil's advocate>

The thing about the butterfly effect is its very unpredictability. The butterfly flapping its wings may cause a hurricane in Japan. Or it may bring much needed rain to Africa.

So, how do you know that taking 'good' actions aren't being transformed by the system into 'bad' ones? Or vice versa. How do you know that (eg.) beating a baby to death (bad) won't preventing him growing up to become a dictator (good)? How do you know that vandalising a neighbourhood (bad) won't inspire renewed neighbourhood pride in the form of a community cleanup organisation (good)? Or that helping someone across the street (good) won't ensure that they reach the next intersection in time to be hit by a car (bad)?

These are all very simple one-link-chain examples. Imagine it rippling 6 or more links down the chain ; it's completely unpredictable! Mightn't you as well do 'bad' as 'good' since you have no idea where it's going to end up anyway?

</devil's advocate>

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Keith

So, how do you know that taking 'good' actions aren't being transformed by the system into 'bad' ones? Or vice versa.

Simple: it's called hope. And economics.

Originally Posted by Keith

Mightn't you as well do 'bad' as 'good' since you have no idea where it's going to end up anyway?

No, because the objective is not to create good six links down the chain. The objective is to understand that you're doing something significant in the world through your own actions, and simultaneously to acknowledge that you don't have control over what happens six links down the chain.

For instance, if I wanted to assassinate [insert evil person here], I wouldn't go and harrumph at the next person I saw, predicting that some snowball effect would eventually result in that fellow's death. Similarly, I wouldn't end hunger in the world by hugging the next person I saw.

It also means that you take responsibility for the world, as an integral member of it, which seems to be a basic tenet of how you can use subjective reality to heal others.

This post, by Steve, is relevant: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...-no-out-there/

[Keith]

Huh, nested quoting is apparently turned off.

In order:

Hope is, by definition, all you have to fall back on when you don't know something.

I'm not sure how economics fits in, but it's far from an exact science.

Why isn't the goal to create good six links down the chain? Surely the goal is to create as much good as possible? And that requires factoring in the ripple effect or you might as well be playing blind man's bluff.

For instance, if I wanted to assassinate [insert evil person here], I wouldn't go and harrumph at the next person I saw, predicting that some snowball effect would eventually result in that fellow's death. Similarly, I wouldn't end hunger in the world by hugging the next person I saw.

Really, even if you knew that would be the ultimate result? Your examples only seem silly through lack of foresight.

Aside: The TV show "The 4400" (though distinctly ordinary overall) was interesting for exploring this premise. People from the future had sent 4400 individuals back in time to our day for the precise purpose of initiating such 'ripple effects'. The individuals in question had no idea what they were intended to do ; they just did what they naturally would (in some cases pretty nasty things) and good resulted X steps down the line.

P.S. Yes, you're right; under the subjective reality model it's not an issue because superconscious action presumably factors in (and actually utilises) the ripple effect.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Keith

Hope is, by definition, all you have to fall back on when you don't know something.

And I'm not omniscient, despite claims to the contrary. If I were, I'd probably go into the fortuneteller business. There's an amusing comic about playing poker against Jesus, who keeps... calling... every... bluff.... I hope precisely because I do not know. Hope transforms itself into certainty through the medium of belief. I hope that people will do good to others; I believe that I influence this positively through my actions; thus, I am sure, not scientifically, but still sure that I should do good to others because it will affect the world positively.

Originally Posted by Keith

I'm not sure how economics fits in, but it's far from an exact science.

There's a link in my signature to something I wrote. It's lengthy, so I won't ask you to read it, but it is an answer.

Originally Posted by Keith

Why isn't the goal to create good six links down the chain?

Again, because I'm not omniscient. The goal is to create good in the world, period. If I knew what the effect would be several links down the chain, then I am equally responsible for that effect. If I don't know, then I am being reckless.

Originally Posted by Keith

Surely the goal is to create as much good as possible? And that requires factoring in the ripple effect or you might as well be playing blind man's bluff.

Originally Posted by Keith

Really, even if you knew that would be the ultimate result? Your examples only seem silly through lack of foresight.

You can't factor it in if you don't know it. Please remember: your premise is that you can't know what the end result is. That it's unpredictable. Please don't accuse me of the crime of agreeing with you.

[Keith]

My point is: We're not omniscient but we do know that the system is sufficiently complicated to return unpredictable results. Given that we know that, I'd argue that it's irresponsible to not factor in that knowledge (that outcomes are unpredictable) when making decisions.

This leaves us in the unenviable position of having a goal "to create good in the world, period" when we know in advance that, no matter our intentions or efforts, any action we take could result in either positive overall results or negative ones!

Is it really ethical to take actions that we know could be incredibly destructive? By analogy, if we could only see 2 feet ahead would it really be responsible to drive a car (with the best of intentions, of course)?

As food for thought, I strongly recommend reading: The Jain's Death (note that the first few paragraphs are metaphysical/spiritual stuff. If they're not your cup of tea, click through - the real story starts a few clicks on).

P.S. I read your economics article. Interesting stuff.

[EDIT] In an interesting bit of serendipity I just wandered across the following quote from the Dao De Jing:
"Wise men don't need to prove their point;
men who need to prove their point aren't wise"

Fair enough; I can take a hint.

[EDIT2] And immediately after, Michael quotes Lao Tze as well ; there's definitely serendipity going on!

[Michael Chui]

Note: I'll read your link tomorrow afternoon. I'm just browsing through the forums one last time tonight before bed, and I really ought to know better. Promise to read it.

Originally Posted by Keith

Is it really ethical to take actions that we know could be incredibly destructive? By analogy, if we could only see 2 feet ahead would it really be responsible to drive a car (with the best of intentions, of course)?

Is it ethical to fail to take action? As Lao-tzu said: nonaction is more powerful than action. (I paraphrase.) Is any action not potentially destructive on any scale?

I do not drive. Indeed, I failed my one attempt at taking the driving test (though I'll get around to trying it again... eventually). However, I will despite that attempt to answer by way of extending your analogy.

One of my friends once remarked that the highway is an incredible thing, a magnificent feat not in terms of engineering or design, but in social dynamics. Why? Because every single person is trusting everyone else not to screw up by a bit and cause a 13-car pile-up. Cars, after all, are extraordinarily fragile things. Planes, similarly, also have a fascinating level of trust on part of the passengers, who essentially can exert no control over their destiny.

How do we trust such a thing? The answer is, ironically, knowledge.

Planes are extremely safe, despite their remarkable fragility. They're safe because the pilots are thoroughly trained, the fuselage, etc. well designed, the air traffic controllers highly attentive, and a very solid understanding of everything involved has been achieved.

Highways, and indeed cars, are also fairly safe, though less so. It is less so because there are far fewer watchdogs on safety. But ultimately, as a driver in a car, there are three contributing factors to safety. Your experience as a driver is one; your ability to see the road is another; and your awareness of your vehicle is a third.

To bring the analogy back, the further along the road you can see, or the further along the links you can see, the "safer" your decisions are. The more experienced you are, the more likely your decisions will be good ones. And the more aware you are of yourself, the more likely your decisions will be good ones. Of course, according to Heisenberg, the act of gaining this knowledge affects the system anyways. You are indeed screwed either way, in this case.

Knowledge is power, which is control. Complete knowledge, or omniscience, yields absolute power, or perfect control over the results of your actions. It is thus always necessary to ever be in the pursuit of omniscience, because the more knowledge you gain, the more responsible you are acting, and the more responsible you may act.

The only ethical action, thus, is gaining knowledge, because it lessens the likelihood that future actions will have disastrous consequences. Of course, in reality, we cannot cut ourselves off so easily from the world; indeed, by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, that ethical action cannot be taken in a vacuum anyways. And so results the world as we know it.

Originally Posted by Keith

Given that we know that, I'd argue that it's irresponsible to not factor in that knowledge (that outcomes are unpredictable) when making decisions.

And here, I must question the very basis for your argument, because as I have glossed over above, to act as responsibly as you demand would in fact be to not act at all, an action in itself.

Perhaps you could give an example of a decision made where you do indeed factor in the unpredictability of its future outcomes. I, you see, find it very hard to comprehend what that factor means to any decision I make. It seems highly irrelevant.

[Keith]

This is a fascinating discussion and I would love to continue it.

However, I'm currently part way through a 30 day trial to stop using the 'net for anything but projects (incl. personal development ones). I'm clearly failing on that front!

I initially made an exception for this forum (I mean c'mon it's Steve - he's the reason even doing 30 day trials) but I now recognise that as a big mistake. Informative and beneficial as this forum is, it's still a distraction (and, I'm beginning to suspect, a full-fledged addiction for me. ).

I apologise for dropping out of this interesting discussion partway through (especially since I'm right ), but it could clearly go on indefinitely and, much as I'm enjoying it, to continue would be wrong for me at this time.

Sorry.

[Zulu]

The butterfly effect is the reason (or the justification!) for why I place such importance on personal relationships. I figure small deeds may have huge positive repercussions.