Sure, in an on paper theory. My argument would be that the butterfly flapping its wings are not nearly strong enough to change the flow of weather in reality.
I don’t know why commentors are thinking I don’t understand the theory. I do, I simply do not believe that it maps to reality. It’s ultimately been taken too far as a trope, even though most of its examples in media often involve characters making dramatic changes.
I don’t think you understand the theory at all considering that the central concept of defining any system as chaotic is that the tiniest imperceptible change of initial conditions leads to an unpredictable product.
If you think the strength of the butterfly wing is insufficient for this theory to map to reality then you have missed the point entirely of why a butterfly was chosen as the example to describe this theory.
Sure, in an on paper theory. My argument would be that the butterfly flapping its wings are not nearly strong enough to change the flow of weather in reality.
I don’t know why commentors are thinking I don’t understand the theory. I do, I simply do not believe that it maps to reality. It’s ultimately been taken too far as a trope, even though most of its examples in media often involve characters making dramatic changes.
I don’t think you understand the theory at all considering that the central concept of defining any system as chaotic is that the tiniest imperceptible change of initial conditions leads to an unpredictable product.
If you think the strength of the butterfly wing is insufficient for this theory to map to reality then you have missed the point entirely of why a butterfly was chosen as the example to describe this theory.