Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)

"When people speak of traveling to
the past, they worry about radically
changing the present by doing something
small,
but barely anyone in the present thinks
they can radically change the future by
doing something small"

Dude...

From the Heinlein Facebook Group

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 12:53:17 PM UTC-5, a425couple wrote:
> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>
> "When people speak of traveling to
> the past, they worry about radically
> changing the present by doing something
> small,
> but barely anyone in the present thinks
> they can radically change the future by
> doing something small"
>
> Dude...
> From the Heinlein Facebook Group

I like that!

pt

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:53:17 AM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:

> "When people speak of traveling to
> the past, they worry about radically
> changing the present by doing something
> small,
> but barely anyone in the present thinks
> they can radically change the future by
> doing something small"

They're not mistaken in _either_ case, despite the apparent
contradiction.

In order to change the relatively near future in a specific desired
way, from here in the present, I would have to do something big.

But that doesn't mean that every small thing I do in the present
doesn't radically change the _distant_ future. But in a completely
random way, so there's no use in worrying about it. I have no way
of knowing _which_ butterflies I should avoid disturbing...

On the other hand, random changes in the present caused by
someone who has travelled to the past, _are_ very much worth
worrying about.

John Savard

On 2022-12-09 10:53 a.m., a425couple wrote:
> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>
> "When people speak of traveling to
> the past, they worry about radically
> changing the present by doing something
> small,
> but barely anyone in the present thinks
> they can radically change the future by
> doing something small"
>
> Dude...
>
>
> From the Heinlein Facebook Group
>

Radically change the future from what?

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 01:18:03 -0700, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-12-09 10:53 a.m., a425couple wrote:
>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>
>> "When people speak of traveling to
>> the past, they worry about radically
>> changing the present by doing something
>> small,
>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>> they can radically change the future by
>> doing something small"
>>
>> Dude...
>>
>>
>> From the Heinlein Facebook Group
>>
>
>Radically change the future from what?

From what it would otherwise have been, of course.

People who choose /not/ to commit crimes rarely find themselves in
jail. Well, in sane countries, anyway.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 22:31:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:53:17 AM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:
>
>> "When people speak of traveling to
>> the past, they worry about radically
>> changing the present by doing something
>> small,
>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>> they can radically change the future by
>> doing something small"
>
>They're not mistaken in _either_ case, despite the apparent
>contradiction.
>
>In order to change the relatively near future in a specific desired
>way, from here in the present, I would have to do something big.
>
>But that doesn't mean that every small thing I do in the present
>doesn't radically change the _distant_ future. But in a completely
>random way, so there's no use in worrying about it. I have no way
>of knowing _which_ butterflies I should avoid disturbing...
>
>On the other hand, random changes in the present caused by
>someone who has travelled to the past, _are_ very much worth
>worrying about.

So then, you don't believe in cause-and-effect?

You believe that, should you choose to commit a crime, whether or not
you end up in jail is a /random/ event?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 10:06:23 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 22:31:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:53:17 AM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:
> >
> >> "When people speak of traveling to
> >> the past, they worry about radically
> >> changing the present by doing something
> >> small,
> >> but barely anyone in the present thinks
> >> they can radically change the future by
> >> doing something small"
> >
> >They're not mistaken in _either_ case, despite the apparent
> >contradiction.
> >
> >In order to change the relatively near future in a specific desired
> >way, from here in the present, I would have to do something big.
> >
> >But that doesn't mean that every small thing I do in the present
> >doesn't radically change the _distant_ future. But in a completely
> >random way, so there's no use in worrying about it. I have no way
> >of knowing _which_ butterflies I should avoid disturbing...
> >
> >On the other hand, random changes in the present caused by
> >someone who has travelled to the past, _are_ very much worth
> >worrying about.
>
> So then, you don't believe in cause-and-effect?
>
> You believe that, should you choose to commit a crime, whether or not
> you end up in jail is a /random/ event?

I don't understand your question.

That is, while I understand its literal meaning: yes, I do believe in cause
and effect, and, no, I do not believe people end up in jail at random,
instead of (at least usually) as consequences of commiting crimes...

I don't understand how it is supposed to relate to the comment of mine
to which you reply.

However, precisely _because_ I believe in cause and effect according to
mechanistic laws of physics, I believe that by choosing to go out
for groceries, I will disturb the courses of some air molecules... and
due to nonlinearities and such like, the consequences of this will grow
and grow over the following centuries.

And so no doubt there will come a time when the hurricanes and tornadoes
that are part of the weather will happen at different times and in different
places as a result of this decision of mine. And, of course, of everyone else's
similarly trivial decisions at the same time. But those consequences will
be unpredictable, and thus effectively random, because they would require
unattainable precision in calculating weather forecasts.

Try to ask for a weather forecast for 10,000 years from now. They will laugh
at you.

Suggested search terms: "Butterfly Effect" "LGP-30".

John Savard

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 10:06:23 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> > You believe that, should you choose to commit a crime, whether or not
> > you end up in jail is a /random/ event?

No, but if I were black, and I lived in the United States, I might have
reason to think that way.

> Suggested search terms: "Butterfly Effect" "LGP-30".

Suggested reading: Chaos: Making a New Science, by James Gleick.

John Savard

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 11:34:23 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 11:27:37 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> > Suggested search terms: "Butterfly Effect" "LGP-30".

> Suggested reading: Chaos: Making a New Science, by James Gleick.

I make these suggestions because this source tells the story far better
than I could.

But to save people some trouble, I will attempt to recount it in my own
humble way.

Once upon a time, a man tried to investigate how computers could be
used to forecast the weather. He wrote a computer program that
calculated how the weather would change over time, based on
fluid flow and temperature diffusion equations for the atmosphere.

He only had a very small and weak computer, because this happened
many years ago, and so his model was drastically simplified in many
ways.

He had the computer print out the complete state of the simulated
atmosphere every so often in his simulation.

But his calculation was interrupted, because something went wrong.

So he went to do it over again. But he didn't start again from the
very beginning, so as to avoid wasting time on the computer. Nor
did he use the very last set of printed-out numbers for the state of
the atmosphere, because he wanted to double-check that his
calculation was being done correctly by the computer.

What he found was that the _next_ set of printed out numbers
was very close to the same as the ones from the previous
calculation, and the one after that differed a little bit more, and
the differences gradually got bigger and bigger, until there was
no resemblance between the new calculation and the earlier
one that was interrupted.

He deduced that the cause was this: the numbers he typed
in from the printout were rounded off before printing. So typing
in those numbers didn't cause the array inside the computer
representing a small piece of the atmosphere to be in the exact
same state as in the earlier calculation.

Because the state equations of meteorology are nonlinear,
small differences grow with each iteration.

This was called the "butterfly effect", inspired by Ray
Bradbury's story "A Sound of Thunder", no doubt.

John Savard

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 11:51:35 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> Once upon a time, a man tried to investigate how computers could be
> used to forecast the weather.

And he had a very popular surname.

Hendrik Lorentz is famous for the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, one of the
phenomena later made part of a coherent whole by Einstein's Special Theory
of Relativity.

Konrad Lorenz (ah, a different surname: this one is without the "T") is a naturalist
who was famous for discovering the phenomenon of "imprinting" in birds.

There's Carl Lorenz, who founded a shop that manufactured lamps and suchlike
in Berlin, which eventually became the company that manufactured the telecipher
device called the Schlusselzusatz, used by the German military in World War II,
for the solution of which Colossus was used.

There's Edwin Lorenz, who founded the Canadian firm Lorenz Conveying Products.

There's Edmund S. Lorenz, who started a company that sells choral music.

But here, it is Edward Lorenz that we're concerned with.

John Savard

On 12/10/2022 9:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 22:31:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:53:17 AM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:
>>
>>> "When people speak of traveling to
>>> the past, they worry about radically
>>> changing the present by doing something
>>> small,
>>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>>> they can radically change the future by
>>> doing something small"
>>
>> They're not mistaken in _either_ case, despite the apparent
>> contradiction.
>>
>> In order to change the relatively near future in a specific desired
>> way, from here in the present, I would have to do something big.
>>
>> But that doesn't mean that every small thing I do in the present
>> doesn't radically change the _distant_ future. But in a completely
>> random way, so there's no use in worrying about it. I have no way
>> of knowing _which_ butterflies I should avoid disturbing...
>>
>> On the other hand, random changes in the present caused by
>> someone who has travelled to the past, _are_ very much worth
>> worrying about.
>
> So then, you don't believe in cause-and-effect?
>
> You believe that, should you choose to commit a crime, whether or not
> you end up in jail is a /random/ event?

Its /Quaddie/!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 2:19:07 PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 9:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

> > So then, you don't believe in cause-and-effect?

> > You believe that, should you choose to commit a crime, whether or not
> > you end up in jail is a /random/ event?

> Its /Quaddie/!

I realize that because of some unconventional political views I've
expressed, some people have a low opinion of my reasoning powers.

However, in this case, I think the post in question is hardly an
example.

In the present, if you want to make a major change to the future,
you have to work very hard - say to stop global warming, or overthrow
Vladimir Putin.

But every trivial thing you do _does_ make major changes to the *distant*
future, but those changes are changes you have no way of predicting, and
they're effectively random.

This isn't because *I* don't believe in cause and effect, it's a _consequence_
of how cause and effect works - and it's beautifully explained in the first
chapter of

Chaos
Making a New Science

by James Gleick, which was quite popular a few years back.

And while _those_ changes to the future are something we cannot usefully
concern ourselves with in the present, they *would* be a serious problem
if people could travel into the past with a time machine. Because _any_
change to the present, however tiny, basically means the entire world is
erased, and replaced with a different world of people who experienced the
alternate, modified past.

So time travel is impossible, and if it turned out to be possible, it should
be outlawed. But if it spawns new timelines, instead of modifying the One
And Only Timeline, as in The Man Who Folded Himself, _then_ it's no
problem.

John Savard

On 2022-12-10 10:05 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 01:18:03 -0700, David Johnston
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-12-09 10:53 a.m., a425couple wrote:
>>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>>
>>> "When people speak of traveling to
>>> the past, they worry about radically
>>> changing the present by doing something
>>> small,
>>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>>> they can radically change the future by
>>> doing something small"
>>>
>>> Dude...
>>>
>>>
>>> From the Heinlein Facebook Group
>>>
>>
>> Radically change the future from what?
>
> From what it would otherwise have been, of course.
>
> People who choose /not/ to commit crimes rarely find themselves in
> jail. Well, in sane countries, anyway.

Is committing a jailable offense something small?

In article <64a15172-7650-41fc-af4f-0522542c99f6n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>But that doesn't mean that every small thing I do in the present
>doesn't radically change the _distant_ future. But in a completely
>random way, so there's no use in worrying about it. I have no way
>of knowing _which_ butterflies I should avoid disturbing...

Or which cockroaches to stomp...

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 10:27:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 10:06:23 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 22:31:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:53:17 AM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:
>> >
>> >> "When people speak of traveling to
>> >> the past, they worry about radically
>> >> changing the present by doing something
>> >> small,
>> >> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>> >> they can radically change the future by
>> >> doing something small"
>> >
>> >They're not mistaken in _either_ case, despite the apparent
>> >contradiction.
>> >
>> >In order to change the relatively near future in a specific desired
>> >way, from here in the present, I would have to do something big.
>> >
>> >But that doesn't mean that every small thing I do in the present
>> >doesn't radically change the _distant_ future. But in a completely
>> >random way, so there's no use in worrying about it. I have no way
>> >of knowing _which_ butterflies I should avoid disturbing...
>> >
>> >On the other hand, random changes in the present caused by
>> >someone who has travelled to the past, _are_ very much worth
>> >worrying about.
>>
>> So then, you don't believe in cause-and-effect?
>>
>> You believe that, should you choose to commit a crime, whether or not
>> you end up in jail is a /random/ event?
>
>I don't understand your question.
>
>That is, while I understand its literal meaning: yes, I do believe in cause
>and effect, and, no, I do not believe people end up in jail at random,
>instead of (at least usually) as consequences of commiting crimes...
>
>I don't understand how it is supposed to relate to the comment of mine
>to which you reply.

You clearly stated that the far-off consequences would be /random/.

>However, precisely _because_ I believe in cause and effect according to
>mechanistic laws of physics, I believe that by choosing to go out
>for groceries, I will disturb the courses of some air molecules... and
>due to nonlinearities and such like, the consequences of this will grow
>and grow over the following centuries.
>
>And so no doubt there will come a time when the hurricanes and tornadoes
>that are part of the weather will happen at different times and in different
>places as a result of this decision of mine. And, of course, of everyone else's
>similarly trivial decisions at the same time. But those consequences will
>be unpredictable, and thus effectively random, because they would require
>unattainable precision in calculating weather forecasts.
>
>Try to ask for a weather forecast for 10,000 years from now. They will laugh
>at you.
>
>Suggested search terms: "Butterfly Effect" "LGP-30".

Ah, I see: you are confusing "chaotic" with "random".

"chaotic" means "fully determined, but we don't have the ability to
predict what will happen and may never have[1]".

"random" means "can't be predicted at all[2]". Unless something has
changed, predicting the time between now and when a single specific
radioactive atom will decay is flatly impossible because it is
/random/[3].

Incidentally, the opposite of "fully determined" is not "free will" or
even "free choice"; it is the very /existence/ of possbile
alternatives. Which Schroedinger's cat demonstrates quite well: if
alternatives did not exist, we wouldn't have to open the box to know
the state of the cat. Which, of course, means that a universe
containing quantum mechanics /cannot/ be fully determined.

[1] At this point, they point out that a computer powerful enough to
do the prediction would be as large as the orbit of Mars and have to
compute for twice the known lifetime (so to speak) of the Universe. Or
some such nonsense. But they are correct in that we do not have the
ability to predict future chaotic system behavior /today/. Tomorrow,
however, who can say?

[2] I have encountered, on Usenet but not here, evolutionary
biologists who assert both that evolution is random and that the
universe is deterministic -- a statement that only makes sense if, by
"random", they mean "fully deterministic, but we haven't figured out
how to predict it yet".

[3] If you are planning to talk about half-life, don't bother: even if
the half-life of an isotope can be computed, rather than just
measured, AFAIK it has nothing to do with when an individual atom goes
pop.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 13:19:04 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 12/10/2022 9:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 22:31:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 10:53:17 AM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:
>>>
>>>> "When people speak of traveling to
>>>> the past, they worry about radically
>>>> changing the present by doing something
>>>> small,
>>>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>>>> they can radically change the future by
>>>> doing something small"
>>>
>>> They're not mistaken in _either_ case, despite the apparent
>>> contradiction.
>>>
>>> In order to change the relatively near future in a specific desired
>>> way, from here in the present, I would have to do something big.
>>>
>>> But that doesn't mean that every small thing I do in the present
>>> doesn't radically change the _distant_ future. But in a completely
>>> random way, so there's no use in worrying about it. I have no way
>>> of knowing _which_ butterflies I should avoid disturbing...
>>>
>>> On the other hand, random changes in the present caused by
>>> someone who has travelled to the past, _are_ very much worth
>>> worrying about.
>>
>> So then, you don't believe in cause-and-effect?
>>
>> You believe that, should you choose to commit a crime, whether or not
>> you end up in jail is a /random/ event?
>
>Its /Quaddie/!

Yes it is. And the idiocy was so delicious it was irresistable.

Apparently, he is confusing "chaotic" with "random".

So, what else is new?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 19:43:08 -0700, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-12-10 10:05 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 01:18:03 -0700, David Johnston
>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-12-09 10:53 a.m., a425couple wrote:
>>>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>>>
>>>> "When people speak of traveling to
>>>> the past, they worry about radically
>>>> changing the present by doing something
>>>> small,
>>>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>>>> they can radically change the future by
>>>> doing something small"
>>>>
>>>> Dude...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From the Heinlein Facebook Group
>>>>
>>>
>>> Radically change the future from what?
>>
>> From what it would otherwise have been, of course.
>>
>> People who choose /not/ to commit crimes rarely find themselves in
>> jail. Well, in sane countries, anyway.
>
>Is committing a jailable offense something small?

Many misdemeanors are. That's why they aren't felonies.

Do you /really/ want to descend into the semantic goo of what offenses
are small and what are not?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 12/11/2022 9:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 19:43:08 -0700, David Johnston
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-12-10 10:05 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 01:18:03 -0700, David Johnston
>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-12-09 10:53 a.m., a425couple wrote:
>>>>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>>>>
>>>>> "When people speak of traveling to
>>>>> the past, they worry about radically
>>>>> changing the present by doing something
>>>>> small,
>>>>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>>>>> they can radically change the future by
>>>>> doing something small"
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the Heinlein Facebook Group
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Radically change the future from what?
>>>
>>> From what it would otherwise have been, of course.
>>>
>>> People who choose /not/ to commit crimes rarely find themselves in
>>> jail. Well, in sane countries, anyway.
>>
>> Is committing a jailable offense something small?
>
> Many misdemeanors are. That's why they aren't felonies.
>
> Do you /really/ want to descend into the semantic goo of what offenses
> are small and what are not?

Don't forget to include prosecutorial discretion in there.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 17:53:17 UTC, a425couple wrote:
> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>
> "When people speak of traveling to
> the past, they worry about radically
> changing the present by doing something
> small,
> but barely anyone in the present thinks
> they can radically change the future by
> doing something small"

Can someone remind me what story involves
making history good by changing a small thing
in the past - maybe the story's past instead of the
past-past. Actually, I don't recall seeing a story
where changing existing well-known history by
time travel improves things. Usually it gets
worse and someone has to change it back.

In article <a3a04f29-00cd-4fc4-ba15-ec0c12e7c506n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 17:53:17 UTC, a425couple wrote:
>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>
>> "When people speak of traveling to
>> the past, they worry about radically
>> changing the present by doing something
>> small,
>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>> they can radically change the future by
>> doing something small"
>
>Can someone remind me what story involves
>making history good by changing a small thing
>in the past - maybe the story's past instead of the
>past-past. Actually, I don't recall seeing a story
>where changing existing well-known history by
>time travel improves things. Usually it gets
>worse and someone has to change it back.

In Hogan's _The Proteus Operation_ it gets better.

Also in Williams's_The Foresight War_ (though it's not a good book by any
means).
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 19:43:08 -0700, David Johnston
><davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-12-10 10:05 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 01:18:03 -0700, David Johnston
>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-12-09 10:53 a.m., a425couple wrote:
>>>>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>>>>
>>>>> "When people speak of traveling to
>>>>> the past, they worry about radically
>>>>> changing the present by doing something
>>>>> small,
>>>>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>>>>> they can radically change the future by
>>>>> doing something small"
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the Heinlein Facebook Group
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Radically change the future from what?
>>>
>>> From what it would otherwise have been, of course.
>>>
>>> People who choose /not/ to commit crimes rarely find themselves in
>>> jail. Well, in sane countries, anyway.
>>
>>Is committing a jailable offense something small?
>
>Many misdemeanors are. That's why they aren't felonies.
>
>Do you /really/ want to descend into the semantic goo of what offenses
>are small and what are not?

Surely it was "small change of the future", not "small crime" that was
in question...

On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 19:40:34 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <a3a04f29-00cd-4fc4...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 17:53:17 UTC, a425couple wrote:
> >> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
> >>
> >> "When people speak of traveling to
> >> the past, they worry about radically
> >> changing the present by doing something
> >> small,
> >> but barely anyone in the present thinks
> >> they can radically change the future by
> >> doing something small"
> >
> >Can someone remind me what story involves
> >making history good by changing a small thing
> >in the past - maybe the story's past instead of the
> >past-past. Actually, I don't recall seeing a story
> >where changing existing well-known history by
> >time travel improves things. Usually it gets
> >worse and someone has to change it back.
> In Hogan's _The Proteus Operation_ it gets better.
>
> Also in Williams's_The Foresight War_ (though it's not a good book by any
> means).

I enjoyed _The Proteus Operation_ more than
I should, but it starts in a universe where
Germany won the Second World War (U.S. abstained?)
and is close to competing a conquest of the world,
so it doesn't fit "changing existing history" from how
we know it. Which I probably meant to say is
presumptuous.

Spoiler - I think it turned out that the timeline
first shown was caused by farther future racists
going back in time from a multiracial paradise to
cause Hitler.

In comics - not a time travel story, I think, but
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_(comics)>
has a superhero save one of the World Trade Center
towers and then become mayor of New York City.

Kurt Busiek's Astro City does have what I asked for -
<https://astrocity.fandom.com/wiki/Samaritan>
has a 35th century man travelling back in time to
save the space shuttle Challenger in 1986.
And it does make the 35th century much better,
somehow. But the 20th and 21st are overrun with
supervillains and aliens and further time paradoxes.
But I think they already were. And that this is not,
in reality, the case.

On 2022-12-11 10:28 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 19:43:08 -0700, David Johnston
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-12-10 10:05 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 01:18:03 -0700, David Johnston
>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-12-09 10:53 a.m., a425couple wrote:
>>>>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>>>>
>>>>> "When people speak of traveling to
>>>>> the past, they worry about radically
>>>>> changing the present by doing something
>>>>> small,
>>>>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>>>>> they can radically change the future by
>>>>> doing something small"
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the Heinlein Facebook Group
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Radically change the future from what?
>>>
>>> From what it would otherwise have been, of course.
>>>
>>> People who choose /not/ to commit crimes rarely find themselves in
>>> jail. Well, in sane countries, anyway.
>>
>> Is committing a jailable offense something small?
>
> Many misdemeanors are. That's why they aren't felonies.
>
> Do you /really/ want to descend into the semantic goo of what offenses
> are small and what are not?

Then let's discuss this. What difference does it make to the future
whether I'm in jail or not? When people worry about small changes in
the past leading to big changes in the present in time travel story they
aren't talking about one man messing up his own life.

In article <7af5d7d9-810c-4f30-a319-f44a5c8b4ba1n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 19:40:34 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <a3a04f29-00cd-4fc4...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 17:53:17 UTC, a425couple wrote:
>> >> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>> >>
>> >> "When people speak of traveling to
>> >> the past, they worry about radically
>> >> changing the present by doing something
>> >> small,
>> >> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>> >> they can radically change the future by
>> >> doing something small"
>> >
>> >Can someone remind me what story involves
>> >making history good by changing a small thing
>> >in the past - maybe the story's past instead of the
>> >past-past. Actually, I don't recall seeing a story
>> >where changing existing well-known history by
>> >time travel improves things. Usually it gets
>> >worse and someone has to change it back.
>> In Hogan's _The Proteus Operation_ it gets better.
>>
>> Also in Williams's_The Foresight War_ (though it's not a good book by any
>> means).
>
>I enjoyed _The Proteus Operation_ more than
>I should, but it starts in a universe where
>Germany won the Second World War (U.S. abstained?)
>and is close to competing a conquest of the world,
>so it doesn't fit "changing existing history" from how
>we know it. Which I probably meant to say is
>presumptuous.
>
>Spoiler - I think it turned out that the timeline
>first shown was caused by farther future racists
>going back in time from a multiracial paradise to
>cause Hitler.
>

Looking at the remit again, I think it still fits.
They changed history, their history, and made it
better (by creating *our* history).
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 11/12/2022 13.32, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 17:53:17 UTC, a425couple wrote:
>> Food for thought,(Perhaps spoken by Spock)
>>
>> "When people speak of traveling to
>> the past, they worry about radically
>> changing the present by doing something
>> small,
>> but barely anyone in the present thinks
>> they can radically change the future by
>> doing something small"
>
> Can someone remind me what story involves
> making history good by changing a small thing
> in the past - maybe the story's past instead of the
> past-past. Actually, I don't recall seeing a story
> where changing existing well-known history by
> time travel improves things. Usually it gets
> worse and someone has to change it back.

I think that some of Poul Anderson's Time Patrol stories fit into
this paradigm. Possibly "The Only Game in Town" or "Delenda Est".

<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?28893>

--
Michael F. Stemper
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at
<http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm>
Please read it before posting.