There may be a possibility that wearing a certain shirt will have some impact on the game (e.g. you wear blue, someone who knows one of the players sees it while they pass you in the hallway and it puts them in a good mood, they then go and more convincingly encourage the team) but you don't know for sure what impact it will have or whether the impact will definitely be in your favour - and when you do know those things it's no longer superstition, but science/experience/whatever.

So. "Small things can lead to big changes so me wearing a blue T shirt to make my team win is basically science" doesn't really work. It would be more like, "Maybe me wearing a blue T shirt will make my team win, but it could also make the other team win and a rattlesnake bite my ankle. I mean, every time I've worn it, my team has won, so maybe it works, but I can't prove anything."

So, you do agree that superstitions may be true. Causality may not be so simple. Whether the outcome is favaorable or not isn't what bothers me. The real possibility of superstition being true is frightening. It could lead to many undesirable consequences, a simple example being exterminating black cats or witch hunting.

And the fact that scientific theories lead up to superstition is very disturbing.

I don't buy into the butterfly effect. The flapping of a butterfly's wings is inconsequential when compared with the larger forces at play. Put a thousand flapping butterflies in front of a train, and see what kind of effect they have on its forward motion. Of course, there's always the case of the straw that broke the camel's back, but that camel's back was likely to break in a few minutes even without the last straw.

Small events may cascade and cause larger events. However, the strength of effects also dissipate. The winds from a hurricane (and the hurricane itself whether started by a butterfly or not) eventually slow down as energy is expended. A terrific storm in the Gulf of Mexico will eventually end up as light breezes and a showers in the northern Great Plains.

The butterfly-causing-a-hurricane is a figure of speech -- not to be taken literally.

Many small, and not so small, events cause -- and maintain -- hurricanes, everything from dust stirred up over the Sahara Desert to slight changes in the ocean currents.

There's an underlying math. Given a sequence of events, each dependent on the preceding events, and the likelihood of each event being, say, 90%. Then pretty quickly what seems like it might be most likely, becomes less likely, and finally unlikely. Turn that upside down and voila, the butterfly effect.

Chaos theory was developed to study such dynamic systems.

Small events may cascade and cause larger events. However, the strength of effects also dissipate. — Bitter Crank

Not so for chaotic functions, and weather is very much such a function.

The butterfly-causing-a-hurricane is a figure of speech -- not to be taken literally.

It is meant literally. One wave of a butterfly wing, sufficiently prior to said chaotic event, is the difference between a hurricane and not that hurricane. This is not to be confused with the wing being the sole cause, but for any storm in history, the storm would not have ever existed given any seeming trivial difference in the distant past. Instead, other storms would happen.
This is why weather cannot be predicted even given perfect information. Any trivial difference anywhere grows into a completely unpredictable difference. Planetary orbits are similarly chaotic, despite the appearance of stability mostly due to one of the objects being so much larger than the others. One planet orbiting a star is stable, but a third object makes the system chaotic, hence the three body problem. The perturbance from one slow sand-grain meteor can make the difference between a planet remaining in orbit or being ejected permanently into deep space.

So, what do you think?

I think the butterfly effect is a reductio ad absurdam, an unending infinite regress.

Of course, there's always the case of the straw that broke the camel's back — CasKev

That's another way to look at it.

I think the butterfly effect is a reductio ad absurdam, an unending infinite regress — Cavacava

How so?

The perturbance from one slow sand-grain meteor can make the difference between a planet remaining in orbit or being ejected permanently into deep space. — noAxioms

That's scary. Are you serious?

The butterfly-causing-a-hurricane is a figure of speech -- not to be taken literally — Bitter Crank

As noAxioms said, it's to be taken literally.

There's an underlying math — tim wood

I don't understand the math here.

A more relevant analogue of the Butter Fly Effect is to be found in how organisms evolve by natural selection.

A small event (gene mutation) that codes for an adaptive trait has effects that continue far into the future.

Trees and vegetation do influence the weather, so tiny accidental events do have far reaching casual effects via biological mechanisms.

Also if ideas are ever believed to be the origin of a cause and effect, like the idea of the Butter Fly Effect, then maybe they also lead to big (or negligible) outcomes via biological mechanisms.

Is the idea of the Butterfly Effect subject to its own effects (what are those effects objectively measured)? I mean this in the sense of memes passing from one mind to the next.

The perturbance from one slow sand-grain meteor can make the difference between a planet remaining in orbit or being ejected permanently into deep space.
— noAxioms

That's scary. Are you serious? — TheMadFool

Orbital mechanics are unstable beyond two objects. Look up three-body problem. The sun is massive enough to dominate our solar system, and the planets sufficiently distant from each other that their mutual interaction is not likely to throw one away soon. Nevertheless, prior positions of planets are known only so far into the past because of this unpredictability.
I have a screen saver that simulates three or more similar size bodies in perfect orbit, and it takes very little time for all but two of them to achieve escape velocity. A tiny difference in initial conditions (the sand grain) might result in two different remaining ones.

Weather is far more chaotic than that. Any difference at all (say one radioactive decay) is likely to utter alter the weather a few months hence compared to the weather without that decay.

The trouble with the butterfly flapping its flimsy wing theory, is that trillions of insects and birds are flapping their wings at the same time. Not only that, billions of animals that move on the face of the earth have an effect on air movements. Now, if they all flapped their puny little wings in concert,  perfectly coordinated, one would have a concept one could
I highly doubt that chaos theorists have the means to model the effect of flapping wings.

It is meant literally. — noAxioms

It's literally bullshit, because there is no means of showing that such a thing actually happens in the real world. There are far, far too many events happening at the same time that can not be adequately assessed in the context of all the other events.

There are real, actual small events which have a massive outcome. One pair of emerald ash borers secreted away in a shipment from Asia could be ultimately responsible for the loss of all of the ash trees in North America. One pair of zebra mussels flushed out of a ships hold could eventually reek havoc on all fresh water bodies in the Western Hemisphere. These kinds of "butterfly" events have an explanation that can be understood (reproduction).

Your screen saver will destroy the universe.

Fine thought. As you can see the theory can have wide ranging implications. Some/most of them borders on the realm of what might be called superstition. I think if this is given serious thought it'll be to open Pandora's Box...something I don't want to do.

It's literally bullshit, — Bitter Crank

Consider this. Hitler was saved from drowning when he was about 4. A small insignificant event and look what happened.

(Y)

Also...I'm interested in the consequences of The Butterfly Effect in a broader context, especially religion, the supposed domain of superstition.

A lot of the examples being given are not the 'butterfly effect', a popular term for chaotic systems.
Gene mutations, spread of disease, a flame in a grain elevator. All examples of things whose effect can grow exponentially, but not really chaotic systems. Even the planet example I gave is a poor one since the imbalance of relative masses lends more stability to our solar system than a small meteor is likely to disrupt. But the effect is still strong enough that it is impossible to say where Earth will be in its orbit a million years from now,. Those chaotic effects are the same ones that occasionally dislodge comets into the inner solar system.

'Back to the Future' is an example of how it doesn't work. Marty working to restore his future existence after he disrupts the meeting of his parents. Nonsense. Alter one atom of the past and there is no future Marty

Hard to say with Hitler. Sure, the saving of the child resulted in the way WWII was played out, but I think it would probably have happened regardless. The world was playing a game of 'Risk', and needed to take its natural progression from isolated countries to superpowers. The war was inevitable, but it ending with a cold war was not. Despite USSR being as bad as Germany, I'm not sure what sort of hell hole the world would have become if the USA or anyone else had finished the war instead of letting it go cold.

What about magic and sorcery? I'll limit myself to weather because you think the Butterfly effect is relevant in that context.

Uttering a few magic words can and does alter the local airflow, humidity, temperature, pressure. Couldn't these small changes magnify into large scale weather systems? I know I'm straining the concept but what do you think?

Orbital mechanics are unstable beyond two objects. Look up three-body problem. The sun is massive enough to dominate our solar system, and the planets sufficiently distant from each other that their mutual interaction is not likely to throw one away soon. — noAxioms

While the escape velocity is unlikely, the subject has been of some interest since the Newtonian 'wobble' effect along the axis caused by possible changes to the internal motions of the crust relative to earth' spin from events like earthquakes, environmental depletion and even nuclear testing that all impacts on polar shifts. If you think of something like orbital resonance, gravitational interactions and any possible deceleration of earth there could possibly bump us into a higher or lower orbit, or at the very least would have some lunar impact that would devastate the internal planetary dynamics.

Uttering a few magic words can and does alter the local airflow, humidity, temperature, pressure. — TheMadFool

:-|

Does it? And double numbers on a clock have some celestial significance too, right? Wow, it is 22:22pm when you looked at your digital watch, it must make you special. It is probably because you are a capricorn. Let us meditate and release the bad energy back to the spirits all around us so that the airflow and humidity will return to normal.

Superstition is an epidemic. It is the outpouring of a weak mind inclined to illusions and so boring and repetitive and empty they are that their capacity to actually use their mind is limited to nothing more than making highly unlikely scenarios appear comprehensible to them. Just like celebrities with no skills, offering nothing to the world but their looks and yet they are adored and admired, so too is superstition attractive to morons.

While chaos theory uses conditional data to ascertain and predict climatic uncertainties, it is not actually about a butterfly. It is a figure of speech.

While the escape velocity is unlikely, the subject has been of some interest since the Newtonian 'wobble' effect along the axis caused by possible changes to the internal motions of the crust relative to earth' spin from events like earthquakes, environmental depletion and even nuclear testing that all impacts on polar shifts. — TimeLine

Those things have more effect on the rotation of Earth (nonchaotic and more predictable) and not so much the orbit, and all of them are negligible compared to tides. Not sure what you mean by polar shifts. Magnetic or physical? There's clear evidence only for the former.

If you think of something like orbital resonance, gravitational interactions and any possible deceleration of earth there could possibly bump us into a higher or lower orbit, or at the very least would have some lunar impact that would devastate the internal planetary dynamics.

Orbital resonance is a gravitational interaction, and only a close passing object would alter the moon orbit more than (again) the tides. The moon is slated to eventually collide with Earth, but that is not a chaotic event. They can predict the time pretty accurately, and it turns out to be moot. The sun will swallow both first.

:D

I did say I was stretching the theory to its limits. May be too much in your view.

Why such a dim view of superstition? Is it because you think it's not rational or is it because, like me, you fear the consequences if it were true?

In my reply to @Bitter Crank I gave the example of Hitler who was saved from drowning as a 4 year old. Look what happened? I think the world is too complex, causation not so simple, and our ignorance to vast, for us to so (over)confidently dismiss possibilities.

Also, the Butterfly Effect is a scientific theory. I just want to explore its logical implications, one of which seems to allow for superstitions to be true.

Also, the Butterfly Effect is a scientific theory. I just want to explore its logical implications, one of which seems to allow for superstitions to be true. — TheMadFool

Superstition would assert that the magic words get to choose the desired weather. Butterfly effect helps you not at all on that account. You are indeed wielding the tool incorrectly.

I just want to explore its logical implications, one of which seems to allow for superstitions to be true. — TheMadFool

No it does not, not in the slightest. The so-called butterfly effect must be thought of in terms of the dynamic systems in which it comes to be an effect at all. The idea is that dynamic systems are defined by - among other things - certain thresholds or 'tipping points', beyond which the system will qualitatively change in behaviour (a weather system 'tips' from a fine day to a hurricane, for example). The 'butterfly effect' is what happens when a crucial variable (wind speed, temperature, air pressure, or something along those lines) 'tips' beyond the threshold required by that qualitative change to happen. This change in variable may be tiny, but it may be enough to set a whole train of events into motion.

A nice concrete example of this is given by Mark Granovetter when he asks us to imagine "100 people milling around in a square - a potential riot situation. Suppose their riot thresholds are distributed as follows: there is one individual with threshold 0, one with threshold 1, one with threshold 2, and so on up the last individual with threshold 99. There is a uniform distribution of thresholds. The outcome is clear and could be described as a 'domino' effect: the person with threshold 0, the 'instigator,' engages in riot behaviour - breaks a window, say. This activates the person with threshold 1; the activity of these two people then activates the person with threshold 2, and so on, until all 100 people have joined. ... Now perturb this distribution as follows. Remove the individual with threshold 1 and replace him by one with threshold 2. By all of our usual ways of describing groups of people, the two crowds are essentially identical. But the outcome in the second case is quite different - the instigator riots, but there is now no one with threshold 1, so the riot ends at that point, with one rioter." (Granovetter, Threshold models of Collective Behaviour).

The idea is that a tiny change may result not only in radically different outcomes, but also in dramatically disproportionate ones. This 'disproportionality' speaks to fact that the causality at work here is 'non-linear' ('1 unit' of cause may result in '10 units' of effect - an exponential, rather than linear or geometric rate of growth), which is one thing that the term 'butterfly effect' is meant to capture. In any case, there's nothing 'superstitious' about any of this, and it's a awful, silly mistake to think there is.

(Y)

But...

For want of a Nail

It's an older version of the butterfly effect but the message is the same.

I was just wondering if I could change the future of the universe itself by simply blinking an eye.

...

I was just wondering if I could change the future of the universe itself by simply blinking an eye. — TheMadFool

Maybe. The point is that you can't decide exactly what happens as a result of blinking your eye.

If you need to try and even dignify that question using philosophy or science, you ought to give up on both.

If you need to try and even dignify that question using philosophy or science, you ought to give up on both — StreetlightX

Just wondering...

Anyway, to make my point clearer, do you realize that top grossing movies are about science fiction and fantasy and these hold appeal even among philosophers like yourself. Doesn't that reveal something? I find philosophy to be more abstract than any other field - thinking, meta-thinking and all - thereby making you more open-minded about these kinda things. Even then, I tried to ground my idea on a scientific theory that allows for such possibilities (superstition, magic, sorcery).

Note, I don't believe in magic and sorcery but finding a scientific theory that admits of such possibilities is interesting.

Maybe. The point is that you can't decide exactly what happens as a result of blinking your eye. — Efram

The simple possibility that I could change the future of the universe is amazing by itself.

There's scientific proof that optimism works. Optimistic people undergoing cardiac surgery fare better their counterparts. For some people writing wishes down repeatedly has positive results (possibly the power of focus and belief). The practice of writing down wishes is an aspect of voodoo.

I don't know if it's that superstition works... just some of the stuff we associate with superstition works for reasons we might know or speculate about.

Perhaps the gap that separates us from belief in superstitions or what you all call magical thinking is the failure to see a mechanism that produces the results. For instance, to me, the placebo effect is simply a name given to this gap.

That brings another question to mind. Perhaps later...

One of philosophy's roots is an interest in doing something about snake-oil salesmen and the power of mystery religions. 'Be open-minded, but not so open-minded your brain rolls out.'