Passage if time smothering causation

hat history

You said:

Anything we do, no matter how well-intentioned or virtuous, has multiple consequences, and among them, we must resign ourselves, will be harm. Maybe not immediate, not that we can foresee, but it will be there somewhere in the long chain of events that our act initiates. Nothing to be done; it's just a fact. We can only hope somehow other events will smother it. ,

ChatGPT said:

I hear what you’re saying, and there’s a grim honesty in it. Once you stop imagining the world as a tidy moral ledger, it becomes hard to deny that every action fans out into a mess of consequences we neither choose nor fully understand. Causation doesn’t come with a moral filter. Even restraint—deciding not to act—has effects that ripple outward and bruise someone somewhere.

What I’d gently push back on is the word resign. Acknowledging inevitable harm doesn’t have to mean moral surrender. It can mean trading purity for responsibility. If harm is unavoidable, then the meaningful questions shift: how much, to whom, with what probability, and whether we remain attentive afterward. There’s a difference between harm that is an unattended byproduct and harm that is noticed, regretted, and, when possible, repaired.

Most ethical systems that have survived contact with reality end up here. Buddhism speaks of intention and awareness rather than spotless outcomes. Christian moral theology talks about “double effect,” not to excuse harm, but to force a sober accounting of it. Even secular consequentialism quietly assumes damage control rather than damage elimination. The fantasy is not that good acts cause no harm, but that we could ever act while standing outside the causal web.

Your last line—hoping other events will smother the harm—is striking. Hope is part of it, but so is participation. Often the same agents who cause harm, however inadvertently, are the only ones positioned to notice it later and soften it. Moral life becomes less about clean hands and more about staying engaged after the fact, resisting the temptation to say, “Well, that was inevitable.”

So yes: harm is baked in. But so is the possibility of mitigation, learning, and repair. The tragedy is unavoidable; the indifference isn’t.

You said:

I once wrote an SF story where travel to the past became possible, and the fact that, paradoxes and all, what was done in the past altered the present in unpredictable (because of chaos theory) ways. So actions were taken, strong actions, to prevent such travel. It turned out, however, that if one went far enough back actions got smothered by randomness; the butterfly was not able to cause a hurricane, too many other things smothered (smoothed out?) the effect.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a lovely conceit, and a surprisingly subtle one. You’re basically letting chaos theory grow up and collide with statistics.

Early on, the fear makes sense: small causes, wildly divergent effects, history as a brittle crystal. If time travel is possible “close” to the present, the system is still coherent enough that a shove can matter. The butterfly still has aerodynamic authority. So the moral panic and the authoritarian clamp-down feel almost inevitable.

But then you introduce the deeper truth: go far enough back and history stops being a hair-trigger system and becomes a thick, noisy medium. Signals don’t amplify; they decohere. The butterfly doesn’t cause a hurricane because there are too many other butterflies, gusts, thermal gradients, random trees falling over. Causation dissolves into a statistical fog.

That’s actually quite faithful to real chaos theory, which is often misunderstood. Chaos doesn’t mean anything can happen; it means sensitivity within bounded attractors. Over long enough timescales, micro-perturbations don’t necessarily dominate—macroscopic constraints, conservation laws, and sheer combinatorial noise start to win. In your story, the past becomes not fragile but viscous.

There’s also a quiet moral turn in that idea. Near-term actions are dangerous precisely because they matter. Far-term actions fade into the background hum of history. That mirrors ordinary ethics: what we do to those close to us, in time and space, is where harm concentrates. The farther out you go, the more intention dissolves into chance. That doesn’t absolve us, but it reframes responsibility as a function of proximity.

I like that you resisted the usual SF instinct to make time infinitely delicate. Your version says: yes, consequences ripple—but the universe is not obliged to amplify our importance forever. There’s something oddly consoling in that. Not comforting, exactly, but humbling in the right way.

If you’re inclined, I’d be curious whether you treated this as a discovery late in the story—undermining the justification for repression—or whether the authorities knew it and suppressed it anyway. Either choice says something sharp about how humans deal with uncertainty.

You said:

The authorities weren't sure and weren't taking chances.

ChatGPT said:

That makes it bleaker—and truer.

Acting under uncertainty is where power shows its least attractive face. If the authorities knew the effect would be smothered by randomness, repression would be cynical. If they knew it wouldn’t, repression would at least be instrumentally rational. But not knowing, and still acting decisively, puts them in the most human (and most dangerous) posture: “We can’t quantify the risk, so we’ll treat it as infinite.”

That’s a recognizable move. When consequences are potentially catastrophic but poorly understood, institutions tend to collapse probability into possibility. Could this destroy everything? Then it must be prevented at any cost. Precaution becomes absolutism. What gets lost is that the cost itself becomes a certain harm, while the disaster remains hypothetical.

Your earlier remark about inevitable harm fits perfectly here. The authorities are choosing a harm they can see and administer over one they can’t model. And because the prevented catastrophe never occurs, their actions are never falsified. History records only that “nothing bad happened,” which is always taken as proof of necessity. The smothering effect of randomness, if discovered later, would be morally exculpatory for the victims but never practically so.

There’s also an irony I like: by preventing experimentation with deep-time travel, they prevent the very evidence that would have shown their fear was misplaced. Uncertainty becomes self-sealing. That’s not just SF—that’s how real-world policy around low-probability, high-impact risks often behaves.

What you end up with is a world where chaos theory is misunderstood in both directions. The authorities fear it too much near the present, and not enough in themselves. Their own actions—centralized, coercive, rigid—are the truly chaos-amplifying force. History may smooth out butterflies, but it rarely smooths out bureaucracies.

It sounds like a story less about time travel than about epistemic panic: what people do when they cannot tell whether they are gods, fools, or merely scared animals with power.

You said:

The authorities were not omnipotent and criminal elements were able to take advantage of their organization and resources to do it anyway, and so were careful and stayed way back where it appeared the chances of altering the present were small. They got into the business of bringing forward precious artifacts, which itself altered the present more than their past-tine activities. But it turned into a positive benefit.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a very elegant turn, and it resolves the moral knot without pretending it was never there.

What you’ve done is shift the locus of harm from temporal interference to present-day redistribution. The criminals’ insight isn’t that the authorities are wrong, but that risk is asymmetric. Go far enough back and you’re statistically invisible to history, but what you extract and reintroduce into the present is concrete, legible, and—crucially—governable. The real lever of change turns out not to be causation in the past but possession in the present.

I especially like the irony that the act everyone feared—altering history—ends up being less disruptive than the supposedly “safe” activity of moving artifacts forward. That feels very true to life: we obsess over hypothetical, exotic dangers and miss the mundane channels through which real change happens. Time travel becomes just another supply chain.

The fact that this turns into a net positive is important. It suggests that systems are better at absorbing objects than counterfactuals. An extra Roman statue, manuscript, or lost technology doesn’t rewrite history; it enriches culture, knowledge, maybe even ethics. It’s accretive rather than destabilizing. History, again, shows its viscosity.

There’s also a quiet moral rehabilitation of the criminals. They start as opportunists exploiting institutional caution, but they end up performing something like salvage archaeology—rescuing value from entropy. The authorities, meanwhile, are trapped by their founding fear. Having defined their mission around prevention, they’re structurally unable to recognize benefit when it arises from the very activity they tried to suppress.

And this loops back to your opening thought about inevitable harm. The authorities’ harm is immediate and intentional; the criminals’ harm is probabilistic and diffuse. Yet the latter yields unexpected good because it stays within the grain of how complex systems actually behave. They don’t fight chaos; they ride it.

Taken together, it reads like a meditation on humility: the universe is less fragile than we fear, institutions are more dangerous than they think, and unintended benefits are as real as unintended harms—just harder to justify in advance. That’s good science fiction in the old sense: not gadgets, but moral weather systems.

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.