Exponential vs. damped alternate histories

I was just reading through an old discussion on Jed's journal that touches on the question of whether any small change in the past would have automatically led to a radically altered present -- and the equally-strong-from-the-other-side question of whether a radical change in the past might still have led to some things being unchanged in the present, e.g. George Bush still being President of the United States even if Hitler had conquered Europe, or (going back some centuries) da Vinci still having been a great 15th-century artist even if Christianity had never arisen.

( Seems to me there's a distinction that needs to be made between *events* keeping on (or returning to) the same trajectory they took in the real timeline, and *individuals* being the same as they really are. )

EDIT: Okay, some further reading has shown me that my musing is old news, pointed out by several people a few months after the original discussion. But I feel at least mollified by the fact that the pointing out was done by two people I think very highly of, Ben Rosenbaum and Ted Chiang... I just have to latch on to these discussions in a more timely fashion in the future (or an alternate present).

Transit meme!

I'm about to be far outstripped by other people, so at least let me get this up first....

My Metro Experience




Got at b3co.com!

Music Meme

It works like this:
You reply to this post and I give you a letter of the alphabet.
Then you dredge up 10 songs that start with said letter and put them in your journal (with these or similar instructions).

( logisticslad challenged me with 'T' )