Coincidence

[BillyJoe]

I recently returned to the JREF on a limited basis to participate on the Puzzle Forum's "Catch Phrase" thread (which my son started nearly three years ago!)

Two nights ago, he and I were searching through a site that lists popular phrases with a view to making up a catch phrase - just in case we happened to solve one and had to post a new one. I came across the phrase "salad days" and recalled that one of Jethro Tull's songs contains this phrase and that, despite listening to this song countless times, I had never bothered to find out what it meant. Curiousity finally got the better of me and I looked up dictionary.com for a definition.

The very next day "salad days" appeared amongst my emails as Dictionary.com's "Word of the Day" (despite being two words).

What's the chance of that?

BJ

[CptColumbo]

The other night when I looked on the "guess the movie quote" thread, the new quote was from the movie I was watching on DVD at that moment.

That was spooky.

Strange things are afoot on the JREF forum.

[Apollyon]

Yesterday I made a comment in the Ley Line thread that spoke of Feng Shui. Not one half an hour later I got a company e-mail informing me that the Feng Shui class was now full.

Was there a full moon yesterday? Or maybe my office resides on a ley line?

[Curnir]

How about this one.

A couple of years ago I placed all my MP3s (music and humor) in a playlist set for suffle.

A couple of tracks in to the set, Dennis Leary's 'everything is horrible' came on.
That song ends with and John Denver on compact discs!?! Oh god!.
that was followed by Graham Chapman saying and now the sound of John Denver being strangled.

Coincidence?

:D

[RandFan]

I recently returned to the JREF on a limited basis to participate on the Puzzle Forum's "Catch Phrase" thread (which my son started nearly three years ago!)

Two nights ago, he and I were searching through a site that lists popular phrases with a view to making up a catch phrase - just in case we happened to solve one and had to post a new one. I came across the phrase "salad days" and recalled that one of Jethro Tull's songs contains this phrase and that, despite listening to this song countless times, I had never bothered to find out what it meant. Curiousity finally got the better of me and I looked up dictionary.com for a definition.

The very next day "salad days" appeared amongst my emails as Dictionary.com's "Word of the Day" (despite being two words).

What's the chance of that?

BJ I opened this post while listenting to Jethro Tull's Nothing Is Easy.

[Apollyon]

Coincidence?

:D
Definitely coincidence.

If John Denver's ultralight had crashed directly in front of you just as Graham Chapman got done speaking...now THAT would have to be questioned. :)

[Rasmus]

I once was driving somewhere in the car and after a few minutes of driving turned on the radio.

Before anything else happened, the display of radio flashed my own name at me.

The explanation is, of course, very simple: A song of "The Rasmus" was playing and the first bit of text received from the RDS was "Rasmus".

It is also very much possible that I didn't notice that music was already playing, or that I wasn't looking at the display when other text flashed up before that. I was, after all, driving.

Still, it was a very bizarre moment before the entire situation dawned on me.

[Stellafane]

When I was a kid, I once slept over my cousin's house. We were playing some game when bedtime came, but we didn't want to stop just yet. So we turned out the lights, waited until my aunt and uncle went to bed, then turned on our little TV with the sound off to continue playing. The light wasn't quite bright enough, so one of us got the idea to turn up the brightess on the TV. Only we turned up the sound knob instead. We instantly realized our mistake and quickly turned the sound back down. But not before two words -- and only two words -- got blasted out, the two words in the whole world we least wanted my sleeping aunt and uncle to hear:

"WAKE UP!"

Just try telling a traditionally raised Catholic kid that God wasn't punishing his disobedience after something like that..

[Interesting Ian]

I recently returned to the JREF on a limited basis to participate on the Puzzle Forum's "Catch Phrase" thread (which my son started nearly three years ago!)

Two nights ago, he and I were searching through a site that lists popular phrases with a view to making up a catch phrase - just in case we happened to solve one and had to post a new one. I came across the phrase "salad days" and recalled that one of Jethro Tull's songs contains this phrase and that, despite listening to this song countless times, I had never bothered to find out what it meant. Curiousity finally got the better of me and I looked up dictionary.com for a definition.

The very next day "salad days" appeared amongst my emails as Dictionary.com's "Word of the Day" (despite being two words).

What's the chance of that?

BJ

It's the phenomenon of synchronicity.

[cloudshipsrule]

One evening at a local tapas bar my wife and I were making fun of a local artists' painting depicting a monkey on a woman's back. (I'm sure that, in time, this artist will blossom into a modern day Rembrandt.)

When we left the establishment what was the first song to play on the 'oldies' radio station we listen to? Peter Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey". I hadn't heard the song in years.

We were shocked at what the asking price of the painting was. Coincidence?

[Wheezebucket]

Stellafane, were you playing Toejam & Earl?!

[Apollyon]

Just try telling a traditionally raised Catholic kid that God wasn't punishing his disobedience after something like that..
That's why I gave up the faith. Absolving my sins didn't outweigh absolving my Catholic guilt.

Is it mere coincidence that many apostates like me have not been struck dead by lightining yet?

[Orphia Nay]

Stellafane, that was hilarious.


On 6/6/06 when I got to work, the first piece of data I had to enter on my computer contained a birth date of 9/11/##. A conspiracy nut would make a big deal about that, I'm sure. OK, so where I live, the date was actually the 9th of November, but numerology is arbitrary to a lot of those guys.

Another one: Last Saturday, without ever discussing the problem with her, both I and my mother-in-law (who's the opposite side of the globe) had to complain to our respective neighbours about continually barking dogs, something I'd never done before at all.

I'm still in dumbed-down mode after analysing Les Raphael's coincidences, or I think I normally wouldn't discuss the subject, as it makes me feel woo. With coincidences, we (sometimes) remember the hits and always ignore the infinite number of misses.

I had to ask my husband what the coincidence was with his mum, as I'd forgotten it. I remembered the first one only because I'd been participating in 9/11 discussions for ages and the 6/6/06 thread for quite a while. I can't think of any others.

[SRW]

Definitely coincidence.

If John Denver's ultralight had crashed directly in front of you just as Graham Chapman got done speaking...now THAT would have to be questioned. :)

I was driving passed the area where John Denver's ultra light crashed and was listening to a pod cast of Pen radio Monkey Tuesday. If John Denver had been a monkey that would have been a real coincidence. :D

[BillyJoe]

Ian,

It's the phenomenon of synchronicity.
From Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synchronicity

syn·chro·nic·i·ty
1 The state or fact of being synchronous or simultaneous; synchronism.
2 Coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully related, conceived in Jungian theory as an explanatory principle on the same order as causality.

synchronicity
n : the relation that exists when things occur at the same time; "the drug produces an increased synchrony of the brain waves"

syn·chro·nic·i·ty
n : the coincidental occurrence of events and especially psychic events (as similar thoughts in widely separated persons or a mental image of an unexpected event before it happens) that seem related but are not explained by conventional mechanisms of causality —used especially in the psychology of C. G. Jung

Which one are you meaning?

At one end of the spectrum of definitions for synchronicity, it means the same as coincidence. I guess you are saying that you are on the other end of that spectrum?

BJ

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,


From Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synchronicity

syn·chro·nic·i·ty
1 The state or fact of being synchronous or simultaneous; synchronism.
2 Coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully related, conceived in Jungian theory as an explanatory principle on the same order as causality.

synchronicity
n : the relation that exists when things occur at the same time; "the drug produces an increased synchrony of the brain waves"

syn·chro·nic·i·ty
n : the coincidental occurrence of events and especially psychic events (as similar thoughts in widely separated persons or a mental image of an unexpected event before it happens) that seem related but are not explained by conventional mechanisms of causality —used especially in the psychology of C. G. Jung

Which one are you meaning?

At one end of the spectrum of definitions for synchronicity, it means the same as coincidence. I guess you are saying that you are on the other end of that spectrum?

BJ

The way that Jung used it. Essentially an acausal connecting principle as he described it.

[BillyJoe]

How do you tell the difference between coincidence and synchronicity?

[arthwollipot]

I love a good coincidence every now and then.

[Interesting Ian]

How do you tell the difference between coincidence and synchronicity?

You can't tell the difference on any specific occasion. But when such coincidences are somewhat more numerous than would reasonably be expected by chance, we can surmise that, at least on many occasions some other principle is involved.

[Rasmus]

You can't tell the difference on any specific occasion. But when such coincidences are somewhat more numerous than would reasonably be expected by chance, we can surmise that, at least on many occasions some other principle is involved.

I'll rot in hell for this, but how can you tell how many of these occurrences should be expected by chance?

And how do you count? You would need to have a number of occurrences of mostly anything that doesn't happen to be a remarkable coincidence - like every single time I torn on the radio on my car when there's no song by "The Rasmus" playing.

And what then justifies the speculation that there is a "principle" at work, rather than just a streak of improbable events? Who is counting the many people that have long streaks of unremarkable occurrences of random events?

[BillyJoe]

Doesn't this mean that, in order to tell the difference between coincidence and synchronicity, we would have to be able to calculate chance of events occurring? Can we do these calculations, and can we do them reliably enough, to tell the difference?


edit:
Oops, Rasmus got in there ahead of me whilst I was explaining "paradigm" to my son.
The above post is to Ian in reply to his last post.

[Rasmus]

edit:
Oops, Rasmus got in there ahead of me whilst I was explaining "paradigm" to my son.

Don't worry, you probably spend your time a lot better than I did.

Oh, also, Ian speaks of another "principle". Shouldn't anything that deserves the name principle follow some sort of rules, pattern, or at least have certain aims?

It should at least be possible, then, the identify some sort of pattern for at least a part of these non-coincidents, right? And, of course, that pattern would have to be a lot more obvious than the bible code or similar things.

[Rodney]

I'll rot in hell for this, but how can you tell how many of these occurrences should be expected by chance?

And how do you count? You would need to have a number of occurrences of mostly anything that doesn't happen to be a remarkable coincidence - like every single time I torn on the radio on my car when there's no song by "The Rasmus" playing.

And what then justifies the speculation that there is a "principle" at work, rather than just a streak of improbable events? Who is counting the many people that have long streaks of unremarkable occurrences of random events?
(1) How, then, should this topic be scientifically investigated?

(2) Aren't there some coincidences that are so remarkable that it would take streaks of unremarkable occurrences of many years to offset them? For example:

"The most famous example is a true personal anecdote of the French author Émile Deschamps, who, sometime in 1805, ordered a plum pudding in a French restaurant, waited upon by one Monsieur de Fontgibu.

"Ten years later, the author ordered plum pudding at another restaurant, only to be told politely (and to his shock) that the last pudding had been served at another table - and who else would be sitting at that table but the Monsieur de Fontgibu of ten years previously.

"Finally, in 1832, Deschamps was offered a plum pudding at a diner, and he remarked that the only thing missing was Monsieur de Fontgibu - at which instant, the now senile Monsieur de Fontgibu wandered into the room by mistake." See http://www.barbelith.com/topic/22483

[Seismosaurus]

(2) Aren't there some coincidences that are so remarkable that it would take streaks of unremarkable occurrences of many years to offset them?

Isn't this exactly what does in fact happen?

Personally, I have now gone 36 years without anything remarkable happening to me as regards plum puddings. I have little doubt that you could readily find thousands if not millions of others who have similarly gone year after year without any great plum pudding coincidences. Given this, isn't that example precisely what you describe - the massive coincidence that was indeed offset by years of unremarkable occurrances?

[Rasmus]

(1) How, then, should this topic be scientifically investigated?

Not at all. I don't think there is anything worth being investigated. Feel free to show that this is not so.

(2) Aren't there some coincidences that are so remarkable that it would take streaks of unremarkable occurrences of many years to offset them?

What Seismosaurus said. You need to contrast the few remarkable incidents that do get told to the countless incidents that are so utterly unremarkable, that they are never told on and will be quickly forgotten.

You need to look at things in perspective, even oif they sound remarkable at first. I don't know where Monsieur de Fontgibu and Émile Deschamps used to live. I don't know how many live in that place, how many establishments tend to sell plum pudding there, or how much either of the two liked plum pudding.

Also, the story could have happened in many other variations, and we would still consider it just as odd. Suppose that the second time, Monsieur de Fontgibu would have only considered taking the plum pudding but didn't, so that the author could have still had it.

Consider the last time, the restaurant would have been called "Chez Monsieur de Fontgibu", or Deschamps would have just read a newspaper article about him?

Also, the intervals are not constant; so we are talking about random dates, several years apart. How many plum pudding do you think Deschamps had in all those years without any interference of Monsieur de Fontgibu? (Goddamnit! I would be so annoyed! You can't have a plum pudding in that place, apparently, without old busybody Fontgibu making an appearence! What a stalker!)

Did Deschamps *really* say that Fontgibu was missing, before he knew he was there, mayby just subconsciously? Would it make a difference or the story if he hadn't said it? Or did he find the second incident so remarkable that for the next 17 years he commented every single time he had a plum pudding?

How many times do you think they were even in the same place, not caring about each other, because the plum pudding wasn't an issue?

[Yahzi]

My best personal coincidence:

I went to a restraunt with my friend Jay. He wanted me to meet his friend Roger.

So we get to a round table with five chairs. I sit down. Jay sits to my right. Roger comes in, and sits to Jay's right. He tells us he wants us to meet his friend Scott. Scott comes in, sits to Roger's right. There is one chair left now; to my left. Scott says he wants everybody to meet his wife. The wife comes in and takes the last chair, and I say, "Hi, again!" because I know her from one of my classes.

So 5 people meet for lunch. Everyone knows the person to the right and left of them, and no one else.

(Sadly, this was before Magic: The Gathering was invented... or the story would have been, "A mage walks into a bar...")

[tkingdoll]

Last year, I worked for one day at an office in a part of Birmingham City Centre called Five Ways. I've never worked there before, or since. That day, I was thinking about my friend Matt (who lives in London) as I had not spoken to him for a long while, and I had heard that morning that a Birmingham office of the radio station he worked for was going to be opened.

As I was only at the company for a day and had a lot to get done, I decided not to take a full lunch hour, but to pop over to the bakery and buy a sandwich to take back. Again, I had never been to this bakery before, (or since).

I walk into the bakery and there is my London friend Matt, buying a sandwich.

He was in Birmingham for one morning, for the opening of the new office, and was walking past the bakery on his way to the train station to go home. There was a window of perhaps two minutes for our paths to cross, as my office was in a different direction. We could only have met at that exact time in that exact place.

He was with a colleague, who was very bemused because it turns out that Matt had been talking about me at the exact moment I walked into the bakery.

Excellent coincidence :D

[sesmo_k]

My oddest coincidence: A few years ago I was house sitting for my parents while they were on holiday. They have satellite TV, not a luxury I have, so making the most of it, I stayed up one night watching a fascinating program about Ethan Allen and Fort Ticonderoga. I'd never heard of either before then. After that program finished, flicked over to Cartoon Network (yes, I was 27!) and watched a cartoon set at Fort Ticonderoga (think it was Cow and Chicken). Next day went to pick my parents up from the airport. they'd had a great holiday in New England and visited... Fort Ticonderoga amongst other places.

Never heard of the place since!

[Tricky]

My oddest coincidence: A few years ago I was house sitting for my parents while they were on holiday. They have satellite TV, not a luxury I have, so making the most of it, I stayed up one night watching a fascinating program about Ethan Allen and Fort Ticonderoga. I'd never heard of either before then. After that program finished, flicked over to Cartoon Network (yes, I was 27!) and watched a cartoon set at Fort Ticonderoga (think it was Cow and Chicken). Next day went to pick my parents up from the airport. they'd had a great holiday in New England and visited... Fort Ticonderoga amongst other places.

Never heard of the place since!
But Fort Ticonderoga is a fairly important place in US history. It is quite unlikely that you had gone much of your life without hearing it, but quite likely that you either glossed over it or forgot it since it had no significance for you. (Lots of history is like that for me:D.) Only when it became significant to you did you start to pick up on the word when you heard it.

[Interesting Ian]

Doesn't this mean that, in order to tell the difference between coincidence and synchronicity, we would have to be able to calculate chance of events occurring? Can we do these calculations, and can we do them reliably enough, to tell the difference?


edit:
Oops, Rasmus got in there ahead of me whilst I was explaining "paradigm" to my son.
The above post is to Ian in reply to his last post.

Synchronicity has special meaning.

Anyway I'm not really interested in discussing this.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, synchronicity means "I want it to be more than a coincidence, but I have no way of evaluating whether it is."

~~ Paul

[BillyJoe]

I looked up a bit about Jung.

Apparently, there are archetypes which, through the medium of the unconscious, are connected acausally to the physical.

But I don't get it.
And Ian's gone.

BJ

[sesmo_k]

But Fort Ticonderoga is a fairly important place in US history. It is quite unlikely that you had gone much of your life without hearing it, but quite likely that you either glossed over it or forgot it since it had no significance for you. (Lots of history is like that for me:D.) Only when it became significant to you did you start to pick up on the word when you heard it.

I live in the UK, never learnt any US history at school, except for their contribution in WW2.

Well, I guess I could have glossed over it, but the coincidence happened a fair while ago and I still remember the name of the place now. Maybe I should read up on American history. :)

[Tricky]

I live in the UK, never learnt any US history at school, except for their contribution in WW2.
Well, it's sort of British history too. It was part of the American Revolution (among other things). I'm guessing that this is not a subject that gets a lot of emphasis in UK history classes.:D

[Stellafane]

Stellafane, were you playing Toejam & Earl?!

It was this football game where the "field" vibrated and the players all went off in random directions. Eventually one of them crossed somebody's goal line and you scored. (I was gonna write "we were playing vibrating football" but those unfamiliar with the game might have gotten the wrong idea.)

Not sure I want to know, but...what the devil is "Toejam & Earl"??

[kevin]

How about this one.

A couple of years ago I placed all my MP3s (music and humor) in a playlist set for suffle.

A couple of tracks in to the set, Dennis Leary's 'everything is horrible' came on.
That song ends with:
and John Denver on compact discs!?! Oh god!.

that was followed by Graham Chapman saying :
and now the sound of John Denver being strangled.
Coincidence?

:D

And of course I read this while watching the Monty Python's Flying Circus episode "Salad Days"

http://www.tv.com/monty-pythons-flying-circus/salad-days/episode/57369/summary.html

[Rodney]

Not at all. I don't think there is anything worth being investigated. Feel free to show that this is not so.
There have been countless millions of bizarre coincidences reported and there is nothing worth being investigated?

What Seismosaurus said. You need to contrast the few remarkable incidents that do get told to the countless incidents that are so utterly unremarkable, that they are never told on and will be quickly forgotten.

You need to look at things in perspective, even if they sound remarkable at first. I don't know where Monsieur de Fontgibu and Émile Deschamps used to live. I don't know how many live in that place, how many establishments tend to sell plum pudding there, or how much either of the two liked plum pudding.

Also, the story could have happened in many other variations, and we would still consider it just as odd. Suppose that the second time, Monsieur de Fontgibu would have only considered taking the plum pudding but didn't, so that the author could have still had it.

Consider the last time, the restaurant would have been called "Chez Monsieur de Fontgibu", or Deschamps would have just read a newspaper article about him?

Also, the intervals are not constant; so we are talking about random dates, several years apart. How many plum pudding do you think Deschamps had in all those years without any interference of Monsieur de Fontgibu? (Goddamnit! I would be so annoyed! You can't have a plum pudding in that place, apparently, without old busybody Fontgibu making an appearence! What a stalker!)

Did Deschamps *really* say that Fontgibu was missing, before he knew he was there, mayby just subconsciously? Would it make a difference or the story if he hadn't said it? Or did he find the second incident so remarkable that for the next 17 years he commented every single time he had a plum pudding?

How many times do you think they were even in the same place, not caring about each other, because the plum pudding wasn't an issue?

Here is more information, which is not kind to your suppositions:
"Camille Flammarion, the astronomer, tells in his book 'L'Inconnu et les Problèmes Psychiques' the veridical tale of Monsieur de Fortgibu and the plum pudding. A certain M. Deschamps, when a little boy in Orléans, was given by M. de Fortgibu, a visitor to his parents, a piece of plum pudding which made an unforgettable impression on him. As a young man, years later, dining in a Paris restaurant, he saw plum pudding written on the menu and promptly ordered it. But it was too late, the last portion had just been consumed by a gentleman whom the waiter discretely pointed out - M. de Fortgibu, whom Deschamps had never seen again since that first meeting. More years passed and M. Deschamps was invited to a dinner party where the hostess had promised to prepare that rare dessert, a plum pudding. At the dinner table M. Deschamps told his little story, remarking, 'All we need now for perfect contentment is M. de Fortgibu'. At that moment the door opened and a very old, frail and distraught gentlemen entered, bursting into bewildered apologies: M. de Fortgibu had been invited to another dinner party and came to the wrong address." See -- http://www.life-cycles-destiny.com/for/the-law-of-seriality-kammerer.htm

[Stellafane]

Ooo -- here's another one:

One time I was going to a Boston Red Sox game with a friend of mine. My friend is a real cheapskate and refuses to pay for parking if he can find a free spot. I'm pleading with him to just park in a damned lot, even offering to pay for it myself, because the game's starting. But it's a matter of principle with him, so we drive around forever looking for someplace to ditch the car.

We finally find one and start walking to Fenway. A few blocks away we hear a roar. My friend wonders what happened, I reply "Someone probably just hit an inside-the-park homer." The reason I say this is because an inside-the-park homer is just about the rarest play in baseball. It's especially uncommon in Fenway, which is so small it's hard for the ball to go far but still remain in play long enough for the batter to run the bases. At the time, it hadn't happened in Fenway in something like decades. I've personally never seen it happen, not even on TV. So for me, the worst thing that could have happened is being cheated out of my chance to see such an unusual event.

Anyway, we take our seats, and the score's 1 to nothing in favor of the Sox. We ask the man in the next seat how the Sox scored their run. Sure enough, he replies "Some guy just hit an inside-the-park homer!"

That was in the 1970's, and to my knowledge, no one's hit an inside-the-park homer in Fenway since!

[Rasmus]

There have been countless millions of bizarre coincidences reported and there is nothing worth being investigated?

Yes.

It has been explained at length why that is so. There are infinitely more boring coincidences in the world, that just don't get told, remembered or counted. There is no reason to assume that there is anything intrinsically special about the more noteworthy coincidences. They make for nice stories and that's that.

So, unless you can recognize some universal pattern about the more noteworthy coincidences, I don't see what should be looked at in the course of scientific research to begin with.

Strange things happen. So what? They are vastly outnumbered by the mundane things that are also happening.

Here is more information, which is not kind to your suppositions:

The story supports my claims!

"Camille Flammarion, the astronomer, tells in his book 'L'Inconnu et les Problèmes Psychiques' the veridical tale of Monsieur de Fortgibu and the plum pudding. A certain M. Deschamps, when a little boy in Orléans, was given by M. de Fortgibu, a visitor to his parents, a piece of plum pudding which made an unforgettable impression on him. As a young man, years later, dining in a Paris restaurant, he saw plum pudding written on the menu and promptly ordered it. But it was too late, the last portion had just been consumed by a gentleman whom the waiter discretely pointed out - M. de Fortgibu, whom Deschamps had never seen again since that first meeting. More years passed and M. Deschamps was invited to a dinner party where the hostess had promised to prepare that rare dessert, a plum pudding. At the dinner table M. Deschamps told his little story, remarking, 'All we need now for perfect contentment is M. de Fortgibu'. At that moment the door opened and a very old, frail and distraught gentlemen entered, bursting into bewildered apologies: M. de Fortgibu had been invited to another dinner party and came to the wrong address." See -- http://www.life-cycles-destiny.com/for/the-law-of-seriality-kammerer.htm

So what?

It's the same stupid story, with a bit of the details messed up.

That only goes to show that such stories change as they are passed on and that hence no single version is very reliable. That there are different version doesn't make the story any more special.

I never denied that the story did occur as told, mind you. I just said that it wasn't pointing at any special cause.

[BillyJoe]

There have been countless millions of bizarre coincidences reported and there is nothing worth being investigated?

Rodney,
Do the following examples help?


(A)
Suppose you watch a Bridge player being dealt his hand of thirteen cards. How long would you have to wait till he is dealt thirteen hearts? Answer: several million years. But, instead of thirteen hearts suppose you were looking out for the following hand:

2s, 6h, Qh, 7d, Jd, 5c, Ks, 2d, 8c, 8s, 10d, 4s, 6s

How long would you have to wait? Again, several million years. However, if the Bridge player is dealt the hand shown above, there will be absolutely no reaction. On the other hand, if he is dealt thirteen hearts, he will think it was nothing short of a miracle.
Every hand has the same probability of being dealt (about 1 in 600 million), but it is only the ones with a pattern that provoke a reaction.
In other words, very improbable events occur all the time but it's only when we perceive a pattern, that we take notice and think something amazing has happened.


(B)
You walk around the streets of your local town and take down the birthdates of randomly selected individuals you meet on your journey. How many people would you have to meet before there is a 50/50 chance that two will have the same birthdate. The answer is 23 people (and, if you can be out by one day, the number is 14 people!). Doesn't sound right does it? You would think that it would be something more like 600 people. In fact, if you go out specifically looking for two people born on the 4th July, you WILL need more than 600 people before there is a 50/50 chance.

Coincidences can seem "amazing" because we apply the wrong probabilities. We are "amazed" only because we apply the probabilities of obtaining a specific match (requiring 600 people, in this case) to a situation which is really only a random match (requiring only 23 people).


(C)
When we trawl for patterns in random data, it is easy to think we find them much more frequently than we would expect to by chance. Again, this is because we are looking for ANY pattern, not a SPECIFIC pattern, but we apply the probabilities of the specific pattern that we just happen to find. Also, we stop when we find it, not realizing how long it could take before we would find it again.

For example, the decimal expansion of Pi is a well known set of random numbers. If we trawl it for patterns, we find, for example, a sequence of 10 even digits by the time we get to the 78th digit. That is equivalent to getting a sequence of ten heads in 78 flips of a coin. The probability of a sequence of 10 heads is actually once in 1024 flips of a coin. So we have an amazing coincidence here don't we? Well, not really. The sequence doesn't occur again in the first 1000 digits of Pi.


BillyJoe

[chillzero]

Last year, I worked for one day at an office in a part of Birmingham City Centre called Five Ways. I've never worked there before, or since. That day, I was thinking about my friend Matt (who lives in London) as I had not spoken to him for a long while, and I had heard that morning that a Birmingham office of the radio station he worked for was going to be opened.

As I was only at the company for a day and had a lot to get done, I decided not to take a full lunch hour, but to pop over to the bakery and buy a sandwich to take back. Again, I had never been to this bakery before, (or since).

I walk into the bakery and there is my London friend Matt, buying a sandwich.

He was in Birmingham for one morning, for the opening of the new office, and was walking past the bakery on his way to the train station to go home. There was a window of perhaps two minutes for our paths to cross, as my office was in a different direction. We could only have met at that exact time in that exact place.

He was with a colleague, who was very bemused because it turns out that Matt had been talking about me at the exact moment I walked into the bakery.

Excellent coincidence :D

Well, you know, in Hollywooduniverse, this means that your destinies are tied toether, and only terrible misfortune can follow if you didn't both marry each other instantly, and live happily ever after.

I hope you are both very happy. :D

[Ersby]

I work in data entry and every record I process has a serial number, and I'm often surprised at the number of coincidences I go through in a single day, such as the same three figures cropping up in different records, or having a day in which a get several records ending with three figures the same.

I'm sure if I was numerologically minded I could use this to convince myself I'm special and that I know more than other people.

[Rodney]

I work in data entry and every record I process has a serial number, and I'm often surprised at the number of coincidences I go through in a single day, such as the same three figures cropping up in different records, or having a day in which a get several records ending with three figures the same.

I'm sure if I was numerologically minded I could use this to convince myself I'm special and that I know more than other people.
Why don't you try writing down seemingly coincidental events in a daily journal for a few weeks and then do an overall analysis of whether those coincidences actually are unlikely?

[MRC_Hans]

Coincidence is an excellent example of data mining, as several have already mentioned. We notice such strings of events, and remember them above the endless parade of equally unlikely, but non-spectacular strings that are constantly unfolding before us.

An example: Suppose I arrived at work at exactly 7:36:15 this morning. The train of events leading up to the exact time I arrive in the morning will start the previous evening and include me setting the alarm, and how late I went to bed. All kinds of events during the morning will come into play, the daily paper, how much dishes were left from last night to put into the dishwasher (I usually do that in the morning), the traffic enroute to work, etc. etc. Literally hundreds of events, which millions of people experience every day. All completely unremarkable and uninteresting, except if one day somebody happens to arrive at some time that spells out the birth date of his dad, who happens to die later that day, or something. Then, if he notices, he will dig through his memeory and construct some highly improbable chain of events. Which IS highly improbable, just like the one that nevertheless caused me to be in at 7:36:15 this morning.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Why don't you try writing down seemingly coincidental events in a daily journal for a few weeks and then do an overall analysis of whether those coincidences actually are unlikely?That is exactly the problem: How can we calculate the probability? How do we know the number of opportunities for a coincidence to happen? Knowing the amount of numbers Ersby processes is probably not too hard, but how do we know the number of things they can potentially match?

Hans

[Rodney]

That is exactly the problem: How can we calculate the probability? How do we know the number of opportunities for a coincidence to happen? Knowing the amount of numbers Ersby processes is probably not too hard, but how do we know the number of things they can potentially match?

Hans
You're overcomplicating the situation. Ersby stated that he is often surprised at the number of coincidences he goes through in a single day, such as several records ending with three figures the same. Let's say that he processes 100 records a day. If the first time he checks each record, 5 of those 100 end in the same three digits (for example 1-2-3), would that not be highly unlikely? Now, if that situation arises only once in a period of several weeks, it wouldn't be that unlikely, but if it keeps happening, then it would be. I'm simply saying that, if someone here think (s)he is experiencing an unusual number of coincidences, that proposition can be tested to at least some extent by keeping daily records and then periodically analyzing those records. It's better than saying: "I seem to experience a lot of coincidences, but most folks on Randi's forum believe the universe is random, so there is no point in analyzing this phenomenon."

[opqdan]

Rodney,
Do the following examples help?
...
BillyJoe
That is a really, really cool post, and those examples are awesome. I think that I will have many opportunities to use that bridge one.

[Rasmus]

You're overcomplicating the situation. Ersby stated that he is often surprised at the number of coincidences he goes through in a single day, such as several records ending with three figures the same. Let's say that he processes 100 records a day.

He'd most likley be fired for slacking, if his data entry work is anything like what i used to do ...

If the first time he checks each record, 5 of those 100 end in the same three digits (for example 1-2-3), would that not be highly unlikely?

Why should it be?

What justifies the assumption that the numbers are fully random? My guess is that they will be anything *but* random.

Now, if that situation arises only once in a period of several weeks, it wouldn't be that unlikely, but if it keeps happening, then it would be.

And then what?


I'm simply saying that, if someone here think (s)he is experiencing an unusual number of coincidences, that proposition can be tested to at least some extent by keeping daily records and then periodically analyzing those records.

And it has been explained to you, several times, that it cannot be tested. OR at least: Not as easily.

What would you analyse those records for to begin with?

And, of course, the example of the bble code shows us that if you look long enough, you will find *something*. Only that doesn't suggest that you found anything special.

It's better than saying: "I seem to experience a lot of coincidences, but most folks on Randi's forum believe the universe is random, so there is no point in analyzing this phenomenon."

Nobody here said that.

[Cetecea]

I used to notice that when I drove around, a lot of streetlights would go off as I passed them. Yeah, I woooed a little, wondering, wow, maybe I am something special.

Of course, with a little logical kick in the head from a friend-- I started noticing all the lights that didn't go out...

I think there was even a challenge about this for the $1M.





Oh, and by the way... I am special...

[Hellbound]

Here's a good one:

Just today, after my lunch, I got onto the elevator to go to my office (on the 10th floor).

There were 9 other people on the elevator.

One person was going to each floor from 2 to 11.

What are the odds of that? 1 in 10 per floor, 10 floors, that's 1 in 10,000,000,000!!!

But it doesn't mean I'm psychic. It's just a coincidence.

And, oddly enough, the chances of one per floor are the same as the chances of everyone getting off at 10, or of 3 getting off at 2, 4 getting off at 6, and the rest at 10.

[Stellafane]

Here's a good one:

Just today, after my lunch, I got onto the elevator to go to my office (on the 10th floor).

There were 9 other people on the elevator.

One person was going to each floor from 2 to 11.

What are the odds of that? 1 in 10 per floor, 10 floors, that's 1 in 10,000,000,000!!!

But it doesn't mean I'm psychic. It's just a coincidence.

And, oddly enough, the chances of one per floor are the same as the chances of everyone getting off at 10, or of 3 getting off at 2, 4 getting off at 6, and the rest at 10.

This is bizarre -- usually something like this only happens when you absolutely have to get to your floor as fast as you possibly can, then the odds go up to 1 out of 1!

[BillyJoe]

opdan,

That is a really, really cool post, and those examples are awesome. I think that I will have many opportunities to use that bridge one.I should hastily add that they are not original.

I have given them a fairly original slant but only because I can't remember the exact details of the original stories which I read a long long time ago, I think in the very early days of this forum. If you hang around long enough, you will find that some topics have a tendency to come up repeatedly.

BJ

[moopet]

A couple of years ago I pulled up at a set of traffic lights with my window open while I was trying to read directions of how to get to a friend's house. Being a man, I turned the CD player off so I could concentrate on reading my own handwriting, and what should I find, but that the car adjacent to mine is playing exactly the same song at the same point! I was wide-eyed and wowwed for a minute until, just as the car was pulling away, I heard it break into the jingle for the local radio station. I then entered a monastary for 14 years to hide my own personal embarrassment.

[Rodney]

Here's a good one:

Just today, after my lunch, I got onto the elevator to go to my office (on the 10th floor).

There were 9 other people on the elevator.

One person was going to each floor from 2 to 11.

What are the odds of that? 1 in 10 per floor, 10 floors, that's 1 in 10,000,000,000!!!

But it doesn't mean I'm psychic. It's just a coincidence.

And, oddly enough, the chances of one per floor are the same as the chances of everyone getting off at 10, or of 3 getting off at 2, 4 getting off at 6, and the rest at 10.

First, I agree, that's a good one; in fact, an excellent one. Second, I don't know that coincidences have anything to do with being psychic. Third, I don't think that you've calculated the odds correctly. Here is my take on the odds, assuming that you work in a building with 11 floors (or alternatively, work in a building with more than 11 floors, but the elevators that you take are restricted to Floors 1-11):

With 10 floors from which to choose, the odds that a given elevator rider will get off on Floor 2 is 10%. With nine riders (excluding you, who is getting off on Floor 10), the odds that exactly one rider will get off on Floor 2 is, according to the binomial distribution, 38.74%. Assuming that happens, there are now eight (other) riders left and -- because there now are only nine floors from which to choose -- the odds that a given rider will get off on Floor 3 is 11.1%. The odds that exactly one rider out of eight will get off on Floor 3 is, according to the binomial distribution, 38.97%.

Continuing this analysis for Floors 4-9 results in respective odds of one person getting off on each floor of 39.27%, 39.66%, 40.2%, 40.96%, 42.19%, and 44.42%. At that point (assuming that one rider does get off on each Floor, 2-9), only one rider (other than you) remains. The odds of that rider getting off on Floor 11, rather than your Floor 10, is 50%. Therefore, to calculate the joint probability of one rider getting off on each Floor, 2-11, the formula is (according to this analysis): 38.74% * 38.97% * 39.27% * 39.66% * 40.2% * 40.96% * 42.19% * 44.42% * 50% = 0.036%, or about one chance in 2,800.

[Hellbound]

First, I agree, that's a good one; in fact, an excellent one. Second, I don't know that coincidences have anything to do with being psychic. Third, I don't think that you've calculated the odds correctly. Here is my take on the odds, assuming that you work in a building with 11 floors (or alternatively, work in a building with more than 11 floors, but the elevators that you take are restricted to Floors 1-11):

With 10 floors from which to choose, the odds that a given elevator rider will get off on Floor 2 is 10%. With nine riders (excluding you, who is getting off on Floor 10), the odds that exactly one rider will get off on Floor 2 is, according to the binomial distribution, 38.74%. Assuming that happens, there are now eight (other) riders left and -- because there now are only nine floors from which to choose -- the odds that a given rider will get off on Floor 3 is 11.1%. The odds that exactly one rider out of eight will get off on Floor 3 is, according to the binomial distribution, 38.97%.

Continuing this analysis for Floors 4-9 results in respective odds of one person getting off on each floor of 39.27%, 39.66%, 40.2%, 40.96%, 42.19%, and 44.42%. At that point (assuming that one rider does get off on each Floor, 2-9), only one rider (other than you) remains. The odds of that rider getting off on Floor 11, rather than your Floor 10, is 50%. Therefore, to calculate the joint probability of one rider getting off on each Floor, 2-11, the formula is (according to this analysis): 38.74% * 38.97% * 39.27% * 39.66% * 40.2% * 40.96% * 42.19% * 44.42% * 50% = 0.036%, or about one chance in 2,800.

Which was pretty much my point. "Synchronicity", regarding as something beyond normal, is a result of misunderstandning of probabilities and post hoc signifigance applied to patterns that are noe more or less likely than any other.

[Rasmus]

[quote]And, oddly enough, the chances of one per floor are the same as the chances of everyone getting off at 10, or of 3 getting off at 2, 4 getting off at 6, and the rest at 10.

Excellent example.

Because, even though the same event was experienced by 10 people, only 2 had a chance to notice what was going on. Bummer for the guys getting of on the lower floors, they missed a good story right there.

Also, it is possible that this happens a lot and doesn't get noted at all: You just need more people entering the elevator at higher floors, and you would lose track of the original 10 people. (And they might all want to exit on the 1st floor on the way down or something, to not make it any less special.)

Rasmus.

[MRC_Hans]

You're overcomplicating the situation. Ersby stated that he is often surprised at the number of coincidences he goes through in a single day, such as several records ending with three figures the same. Let's say that he processes 100 records a day. If the first time he checks each record, 5 of those 100 end in the same three digits (for example 1-2-3), would that not be highly unlikely?

Depends on the distribution of the numbers. Those records are records of something, not random numbers. Perhaps some numbers are more common than others.

What you recommended was that he record the coincidences, but my point is that that is not enough. You need to find out what the chance is for coincidences to happen. And unless you know all possible sources for patterns in the records, you cannot know if there is something peculiar about them.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*Continuing this analysis for Floors 4-9 results in respective odds of one person getting off on each floor of 39.27%, 39.66%, 40.2%, 40.96%, 42.19%, and 44.42%. At that point (assuming that one rider does get off on each Floor, 2-9), only one rider (other than you) remains. The odds of that rider getting off on Floor 11, rather than your Floor 10, is 50%. Therefore, to calculate the joint probability of one rider getting off on each Floor, 2-11, the formula is (according to this analysis): 38.74% * 38.97% * 39.27% * 39.66% * 40.2% * 40.96% * 42.19% * 44.42% * 50% = 0.036%, or about one chance in 2,800.Again, that analysis assumes that all floors are equal. They may not be. People's reasons for being on the lift at that time may cause patterns.

Hans

[Rasmus]

What you recommended was that he record the coincidences,

Yes, the keyword here are the italics you used for "coincidences". Getting numbers 681, 465, and 715 is just as much a coincidence as getting 111, 112 and 113.

I have spend several years working with banking cards; the numbers are NOT random there. At most, certain blocks of digits are produced consecutively, other blocks are static for large batches of cards. (They encode regions or locations, etc.)

Then, the cards that one is dealing with are just a subset of all existing cards - these cards have something in common that may or may not be correspond to their serial number.

Also, if you spend your working hours hacking those numbers into your keyboards, you sometimes lose focus and see things that just aren't there. I had moments where suddenly the most random sequences seemed meaningful in and of themselves.

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, or look at this random list of numbers:

52250
17875
57750
123375
110000
35375
28250
35125
71750
124875
21125
125
6000
46375
6125
51250
86750
86000
119625
52500

....Obviously something weird going on here, right?;)

Hans

(edited for formatting .. How to make formatted lists?)

[Ersby]

To give a better idea of what I meant by "coincidences", here's a list of numbers I wrote down towards the end of yesterday, and why they were remarkable.

547404 (the number 4 every other digit)
547433 (last two numbers the same)
547457 (first three digits an anagram of last three digits)
547478 (repitition of 47)
547488 (last two numbers the same)

Amazingly, in an email to me yesterday, someone quoted record number 545474 which, like my first example, has the number 4 every other digit. Then, quite without me realising, I later saw that I'd written this list on a page of my notepad where I'd already written 531513 (another anagrammic number). And then today my first record was number 547711 (two double digits) and I discovered that for some reason the system had deleted no. 547533 (ends in two digits).

All of this is nonsensical, of course. I've no pre-existing criteria for deciding which numbers are important. I go by aesthetic coincidences which are pretty meaningless. But if I were to attach it to something mystical such as the position of the stars or ley lines, I reckon I could make some money.

ETA: I only process about twenty to fifty records a day. I can only assume my work isn't anything like Rasmus'!

[Rodney]

Huntsman wrote: "And, oddly enough, the chances of one per floor are the same as the chances of everyone getting off at 10, or of 3 getting off at 2, 4 getting off at 6, and the rest at 10."

Excellent example.
No, incorrect example. I've demonstrated that, using the simplification of the binomial distribution (which, assuming that the number of people who work on each Floor, 2-11, in Huntsman's building is approximately the same, is a close approximation of the exact odds), the chances of one person getting off on each Floor, 2-11, with the conditions specified by Huntsman, is about 1 in 2800. On the other hand, the random odds of everyone getting off at Huntsman's Floor 10 is approximately one in 10 to the ninth power, or one in one billion. Why? Because for each elevator rider, the odds of him/her getting off on Floor 10 is about one in 10, and there are nine riders (other than Huntsman, who knows that he is getting off on Floor 10). What you're missing is that -- all things being equal -- there is a low probability of a given rider getting off on a given floor, and so the odds of all nine riders getting off on the same floor are extremely low. On the other hand, each rider has to get off on some floor, and there are a vast number of ways they can do that if they get off on several different floors. However, the "all things being equal" disclaimer is important because often two or more people from the same floor will ride the elevator together. That's another reason why I think Huntsman's example is a particularly good coincidence, but still not as good as a random situation where nine other riders all get off on Huntsman's Floor 10.

[Rasmus]

No, incorrect example. I've demonstrated that, using the simplification of the binomial distribution (which, assuming that the number of people who work on each Floor, 2-11, in Huntsman's building is approximately the same, is a close approximation of the exact odds), the chances of one person getting off on each Floor, 2-11, with the conditions specified by Huntsman, is about 1 in 2800.

That doesn't make the example any worse. On the contrary, it makes it better, since most people wouldn't estimate the chances to be as good as they actually are.


That's another reason why I think Huntsman's example is a particularly good coincidence, but still not as good as a random situation where nine other riders all get off on Huntsman's Floor 10.

Right, it is certainly not random - but then, what is? Very few things happen randomly.

[Hellbound]

What Rasmus said :)

That was pretty much the point of my anecdote. Most people don't understand how probability is calculated, and they overestimate the odds of something happening, especially if whatever happened is something that has some sort of special meaning (like one person per floor, or a number sequence like 1,2,3,4, or something similar).

[HeyLeroy]

I've experienced so many coincidences in my life, it's surprising I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool woo.

Many years ago, I used to manage video rental stores. We had several TV's suspended from the ceiling, where we'd keep a movie running (with no sound), and a classic rock station on the speakers.

One day I popped in Twilight Zone: The Movie and went about my work. A few minutes later, I noticed Creedence Clearwater Revival on the radio playing "The Midnight Special", looked up to the screen, and noticed it was the very part in the movie where Dan Aykroyd and Albert Brooks were singing that same song.

WOO!

Another time, before my ex-wife and I were married, we were on a camping trip about a four hour drive from home. There's a famous hotel near where we were, with a beautiful patio overlooking the Grand River (pictured) (http://www.eloramill.com/), and we went there for a beer.

From across the room I heard my name called. The guy didn't look familiar, but he introduced himself as my former next-door neighbour, and the name rang a bell. When I was younger there was family next door with that name.
I asked after his mother and sisters, and they were well. He asked after my parents as well.

But then he asked after my sister. "You mean Don, my brother," I answered.

Turned out, I looked exactly like his former neighbour with the same first name. From a completely different city. And he shared the same family name as my former neighbours.

WOO WOO!
The third was after my ex and I were married. We were camping again, with her friends. (see map) (http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?do=nw&go=1&r=f&aoh=&aot=&aof=&2a=&2c=Rifle%20River&2s=MI&2z=&2n=&2y=US&2l=NUjTJJIbhb4%3d&2g=Jjh4U0xcElQ%3d&2v=CITY&1a=&1c=Windsor&1s=ON&1z=&1y=CA&1l=wRRAjjm3yyw%3d&1g=8Je9pv5xTa4%3d&1pn=&1pl=&1v=CITY&1ffi=&1ex=&1n=). There's a nice, lazy river that runs through the campgrounds, just perfect for taking a float on a truck inner-tube. The campground had an old schoolbus that would drive around the site and ferry people to the place from where you'd start 'tubing'.

One morning I was enjoying my breakfast caesar in my campchair. The bus pulled up, and a crowd disembarked.

There stood six of my friends, looking at me like I had three eyes, or something.

TRIPLE WOO!

Strange occurrences, yes. Coincidence, of course. Synchronicity? A Police song.

[moopet]

No, incorrect example. I've demonstrated that, using the simplification of the binomial distribution (which, assuming that the number of people who work on each Floor, 2-11, in Huntsman's building is approximately the same, is a close approximation of the exact odds), the chances of one person getting off on each Floor, 2-11, with the conditions specified by Huntsman, is about 1 in 2800. On the other hand, the random odds of everyone getting off at Huntsman's Floor 10 is approximately one in 10 to the ninth power, or one in one billion. Why? Because for each elevator rider, the odds of him/her getting off on Floor 10 is about one in 10, and there are nine riders (other than Huntsman, who knows that he is getting off on Floor 10). What you're missing is that -- all things being equal -- there is a low probability of a given rider getting off on a given floor, and so the odds of all nine riders getting off on the same floor are extremely low. On the other hand, each rider has to get off on some floor, and there are a vast number of ways they can do that if they get off on several different floors. However, the "all things being equal" disclaimer is important because often two or more people from the same floor will ride the elevator together. That's another reason why I think Huntsman's example is a particularly good coincidence, but still not as good as a random situation where nine other riders all get off on Huntsman's Floor 10.


There's a simple way of thinking of this. Because there are ten possibilities , each person can have a floor from 0 to 9. Ten people. That makes a decimal number ten digits long.
The fallacy in the first argument was to assume that the likelihood of people getting off one per floor was the same as the likelihood of picking the number 0123456789 from a possible 999999999 choices. But that's only the case if the people get off in a particular order. For the case cited, 8123476590 is also a valid number. and 1234567890.

It's further complicated by knowing in advance that one person gets off at floor ten, and also that presumably if someone else was going to get off there, the first person would recognise them and be talking to them about cricket instead of noticing coincidences.

[tkingdoll]

A funny World Cup coincidence tonight:

We were watching the England v Sweden game, and my hubby was pointing out to me one of the Swedish players (who used to play for Aston Villa). We had recently seen this player in an electrical goods shop in a posh area of Birmingham, which was apparently quite exciting if you like that sort of thing. The shop was called Apollo 2000. As my hubby said "2000", the player scored the 2000th goal in World Cup history.

Probably not so neat to non-soccer folk and England fans :D

[Rodney]

What Rasmus said :)

That was pretty much the point of my anecdote. Most people don't understand how probability is calculated, and they overestimate the odds of something happening, especially if whatever happened is something that has some sort of special meaning (like one person per floor, or a number sequence like 1,2,3,4, or something similar).

Thats's true of most believers, but not true about most skeptics, who tend to underestimate the odds of things happening, such as the creation of life. For example, on -- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html -- Ian Musgrave states:

"However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it
hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics.
When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance
of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone
before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.

"Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four
times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times
would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you
get 4 heads in a row?

"Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)^4 or 1 chance in
16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in
successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before
HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 10^40)
gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say
where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first
trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator
could have turned up surprisingly early."

Actually, no, barring a staggeringly unlikely occurrence. While, when the probability of success is relatively high, as Musgrave states: "You can flip HHHH on your very first trial", there is virtually no chance at odds of 1 in 4.29 x 10^40 of success even after 4.29 octillion (4.29 x 10^27) trials. Rather, to get to just a 0.1% chance of success, more than 4.29 x 10^37 trials would be necessary.

Musgrave's discussion of probability is also misleading in that it fosters the notion that the number of trials needed will almost always be significantly less than what most people would expect. While it is true, for example, that, on average, an event that has a one in a million chance of occurring will occur before one million trials have taken place, it is also true that there is about a 37% chance that the event will not have occurred after one million trials have taken place and a 13.5% chance that the event will not have occurred even after two million trials have taken place.

So Musgrave seems to think that life coming into existence through random chance was inevitable, when it was anything but.

[aerosolben]

How many people would you have to meet before there is a 50/50 chance that two will have the same birthdate. The answer is 23 people (and, if you can be out by one day, the number is 14 people!). Doesn't sound right does it? You would think that it would be something more like 600 people.
Only if you're reeeeeeeally bad at math. :D

[moopet]

Only if you're reeeeeeeally bad at math. :D

Direct quote from my *ex*-girlfriend:
"There was this like other girl at work today and she's got the same birthday as me. The odds against that must be, like, a thousand to one"

[MRC_Hans]

Direct quote from my *ex*-girlfriend:
"There was this like other girl at work today and she's got the same birthday as me. The odds against that must be, like, a thousand to one"Of course, it it was the same year, too......

Hans

[BillyJoe]

Only if you're reeeeeeeally bad at math. :DI was obviously talking about an "off the top of your head" estimate, not a mathematical calculation. :cool:

[Hellbound]

Thats's true of most believers, but not true about most skeptics, who tend to underestimate the odds of things happening, such as the creation of life. For example, on -- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html -- Ian Musgrave states:

"However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it
hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics.
When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance
of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone
before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.

"Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four
times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times
would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you
get 4 heads in a row?

"Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)^4 or 1 chance in
16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in
successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before
HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 10^40)
gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say
where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first
trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator
could have turned up surprisingly early."

Actually, no, barring a staggeringly unlikely occurrence. While, when the probability of success is relatively high, as Musgrave states: "You can flip HHHH on your very first trial", there is virtually no chance at odds of 1 in 4.29 x 10^40 of success even after 4.29 octillion (4.29 x 10^27) trials. Rather, to get to just a 0.1% chance of success, more than 4.29 x 10^37 trials would be necessary.

Musgrave's discussion of probability is also misleading in that it fosters the notion that the number of trials needed will almost always be significantly less than what most people would expect. While it is true, for example, that, on average, an event that has a one in a million chance of occurring will occur before one million trials have taken place, it is also true that there is about a 37% chance that the event will not have occurred after one million trials have taken place and a 13.5% chance that the event will not have occurred even after two million trials have taken place.

So Musgrave seems to think that life coming into existence through random chance was inevitable, when it was anything but.

I'm not going to spend much time on this, because there is SO much more to that probability calculation than what you've posted. I'll just touch a few areas.

IN any case, the principle is sound. It could have happened the first time (although it is highly unlikely). Another thing to consider is that there were likely well over two million chemical reactions happening at any given time. Even restricting it to lightning strikes (a common theory), there are over 100 lightning strikes on the Earth each second (http://www.weathermetrics.com/news/weatherFun.htm). That's over eight and a half million poer day. Even if we assume only 10% of these impacted in areas that contained organic atomic componenets (hydrogen, carbon, etc), and if we assume that the rate of lightning was only 10% what it is today, we end up with an 86.5% of life creation after 100 days, using your own calculations.

So yeah, with the conditions we had, life was pretty darn close to inevitable. The chance of nothign occuring at all is, likely, less than the chance of it happening on the first try.

[aerosolben]

I was obviously talking about an "off the top of your head" estimate, not a mathematical calculation. :cool:

My apologies. Only if you're reeeeeeeeally bad at "off the top of your head" estimation. :p

[Spektator]

Direct quote from my *ex*-girlfriend:
"There was this like other girl at work today and she's got the same birthday as me. The odds against that must be, like, a thousand to one"
As Terry Pratchett says, "Million-to-one chances come through nine times out of ten."

[Rodney]

So yeah, with the conditions we had, life was pretty darn close to inevitable. The chance of nothign occuring at all is, likely, less than the chance of it happening on the first try.
Do you ever wonder why, if what you're saying is true, life from non-life has never been created in a laboratory?

[Hellbound]

Do you ever wonder why, if what you're saying is true, life from non-life has never been created in a laboratory?

Because we can't produce lightning in a lab (not anything close to the real thing), and especially not at 100 times a second, with a planet-full of material to work with.

We have produced organic compounds, and some of the precursers to life. But considering the research in this area is fairly new, no, I haven't wondered that we can't create it in a lab.

That's pretty much a non-argument.

Have you ever wondered why we can't make a supernova in the lab? Well, astronomy must be wrong.

Have you ever wondered why we can't make a black hole in the lab? Well, psychics is out.

Have you ever wondered why we can't make an earthquake in the lab? So much for geology.

Have you ever wondered why we can't make a volcano in the lab? So much for vulcanology.

Have you ever wondered why you can't actually makea logical argument, but can only insinuate that others are wrong, while providing no countering facts or evidence? Well, you don't think clearly.

:D

Note for Readers: One of the things in this list is not like the others...can you spot which one?

[BillyJoe]

My apologies. Only if you're reeeeeeeeally bad at "off the top of your head" estimation. :pI was obviously talking about an "off the top of your head" estimation by average Joe.

[BillyJoe]

Do you ever wonder why, if what you're saying is true, life from non-life has never been created in a laboratory?Watch this space.
....but hang around for a while. :D

[BillyJoe]

Note for Readers: One of the things in this list is not like the others...can you spot which one? Black holes.

[Hellbound]

Black holes.

LOL

No, we still can't make black holes yet, but that won't be true for much longer :P

Unless they've already finished the new accelerator...

[JP1283]

On my drive home from Salt Lake City two days ago, I started thinking about my cousin's roommate that I met there. Almost as I started thinking about him, he called me. And I knew it was him even before I checked the caller ID. It was weird.

[Rodney]

Because we can't produce lightning in a lab (not anything close to the real thing), and especially not at 100 times a second, with a planet-full of material to work with.

We have produced organic compounds, and some of the precursers to life. But considering the research in this area is fairly new, no, I haven't wondered that we can't create it in a lab.
Fairly new? The Urey/Miller experiment that first created amino acids from non-life was done in 1952! The progress toward creating life in a lab since then? As far I can tell, zero.

That's pretty much a non-argument.

Have you ever wondered why we can't make a supernova in the lab? Well, astronomy must be wrong.

Have you ever wondered why we can't make a black hole in the lab? Well, psychics is out.

Have you ever wondered why we can't make an earthquake in the lab? So much for geology.

Have you ever wondered why we can't make a volcano in the lab? So much for vulcanology.

Have you ever wondered why you can't actually make a logical argument, but can only insinuate that others are wrong, while providing no countering facts or evidence? Well, you don't think clearly.
I wasn't the one who thought the odds of ten people on an elevator getting off on different floors was 1 in 10 billion, rather than the true odds of about 1 in 2800.

Note for Readers: One of the things in this list is not like the others...can you spot which one?
Your knowledge of probability?

[Rodney]

Watch this space.
....but hang around for a while. :D
You mean like another 54 years? (the time since the Urey/Miller experiment)

[Luke T.]

When my wife was about to give birth to our twins in the hospital, she was feeling very isolated. We had moved recently and had no relatives or friends within 3,000 miles.

My wife expressed a desire that her best friend from "back home" was there with her.

Just then a nurse came in the room. I saw her nametag, and completely freaked out inside, asked her to pronounce her last name out loud for my wife's benefit.

The same as my wife's best friend. First and last name. And it's an unusual last name.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[gumboot]

But Fort Ticonderoga is a fairly important place in US history. It is quite unlikely that you had gone much of your life without hearing it, but quite likely that you either glossed over it or forgot it since it had no significance for you. (Lots of history is like that for me:D.) Only when it became significant to you did you start to pick up on the word when you heard it.


Kinda like you buy a model car that you've hardly ever seen before (you think) but the moment you own it, they're everywhere.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

I work in data entry and every record I process has a serial number, and I'm often surprised at the number of coincidences I go through in a single day, such as the same three figures cropping up in different records, or having a day in which a get several records ending with three figures the same.

I'm sure if I was numerologically minded I could use this to convince myself I'm special and that I know more than other people.



I was gonna say something like this. I've worked in data entry and come up with all sorts of things; birthdates of friends, my own phone number, some relevant number that I had just read in a newspaper article etc...

I think the thing is, the coincidence of two things doesn't mean anything at all. And neither of those two things actually mean anything either. Humans apply their own meaning to each of the things, and they apply their own meaning to the relationship between the things.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

On the chance thing... I want to throw around an idea...

I personally think nothing happens by chance (bear with me)

Seems everything is infinately affected by everything around it (in varying degrees) and everything then affects everything else around it (in varying degrees).

So when you flip a coin, for example, minute variances during the duration of that coin toss dictate which way it will land.

The thing being, things *seem* random to us because we have no possible way of seeing all the trillions upon trillions of factors that can affect (in whatever way) any given event.

This would explain coincidence. Take the story of the friends meeting at the bakery in birmingham. Were you watching the two of them, and aware of what each was doing, you would see that it was inevitable that they met - events could not possibly have occured any differently. However ignorance to most of the factors (for example not knowing the friend was in town) resulted in an event perceived as "unlikely".

Any thoughts?
-Andrew

[Rasmus]

Any thoughts?
-Andrew

I think this is a different discussion, randomness vs. determinism.
This is more about a non-caring universe against fate.

Not that I know anything about it, but I think random events are possible; at least that is what I think those in the know are mostly thinking.

[arthwollipot]

Any thoughts?
-Andrew

That's fine, when generalising macro-events. However, the sheer number of variables that come into effect when flipping a coin make calculation of the event beyond the abilities of most calculators. Well, all calculators, actually.

And then if you're taking into account all variables, you get to the level of molecules, and atoms, and subatomic quantum messiness which as far as anyone can tell is actually, genuinely random.

But as a gross generalisation, this is fair enough.

[gumboot]

:)

Yeah, wasn't suggesting there was any chance of calculating those variables. Though... if you could...

:eye-poppi

[Ersby]

I was gonna say something like this.

[snip]

-Andrew
Another coincidence: we share the same name!

[BillyJoe]

And then if you're taking into account all variables, you get to the level of molecules, and atoms, and subatomic quantum messiness which as far as anyone can tell is actually, genuinely random. Apparently, quantum interactions are probabilistic, not random, and the outcome of quantum experiments are entirely predictable.
Then again, I've heard it said that quantum theory allows you to jump through walls. It's just that the chance of this happening is so vanishingly small that it is virtually zero.

(Worse than winning lotto, hey Rasmus :) )

BJ



ediit: The young lad sitting at his computer immediately to my right is also called Andrew.

[Interesting Ian]

Apparently, quantum interactions are probabilistic, not random,



It's entirely the same thing!



and the outcome of quantum experiments are entirely predictable.



No, nothing is entirely predictable. Indeed, on the contrary, all things are entirely random.



Then again, I've heard it said that quantum theory allows you to jump through walls. It's just that the chance of this happening is so vanishingly small that it is virtually zero.



quantum tunnelling

[Interesting Ian]

I think that everything said in this thread so far by skeptics is entirely irrelevant. Of course people see patterns and significance in events which are in fact wholly coincidental. This however gives no evidence against the idea that some apparent coincidences are not in fact coincidences. In other words that the events in question are brought about by anomalous means.

[Hellbound]

Fairly new? The Urey/Miller experiment that first created amino acids from non-life was done in 1952! The progress toward creating life in a lab since then? As far I can tell, zero.

Which pretty much shows how little you know about the area. There's been a bit of research into various theories, including the clay structures idea, for one. However, testing is difficult and time-consuming.

I wasn't the one who thought the odds of ten people on an elevator getting off on different floors was 1 in 10 billion, rather than the true odds of about 1 in 2800.

And neither was I, that was a tongue-in-check example to show how often people misunderstand probability, and apply greater signifigance to events because of this. I explained that several times, but I keep forgetting you can only read things that support your opinion, and ignore everything else.

Your knowledge of probability?

Not quite.

You mean like another 54 years? (the time since the Urey/Miller experiment)

If we get it done in that time, I'll be impressed.

It took millions of years the first time, on Earth, at an experimental rate within a few orders of magnitude of 3.15x108. Yet you expect us to do it in a lab, where we can't entirely replicate the conditions (we can't produce the voltage and current of actual lightning, for example), where the experimental rate, at best, is one-billionth the natural rate when the event(s) occured, in one two hundred thousanth of the time?

While we're talking of understanding, how are you with fractions? Apparently not very good...

[NiallM]

Again, that analysis assumes that all floors are equal. They may not be. People's reasons for being on the lift at that time may cause patterns.

Hans
If, for instance, the floors are all owned by separate companies working in customer service, they may each have a policy of stageered lunchbreaks, which would increase the likelihood of such an event.

[Rodney]

Which pretty much shows how little you know about the area. There's been a bit of research into various theories, including the clay structures idea, for one. However, testing is difficult and time-consuming.
At the time the results of the Urey/Miller experiment were published in 1953, many scientists thought that the actual creation of life in a laboratory was just around the corner. A tremendous of research has been done in this area, but the ball doesn't seem to have been moved forward at all. Contrast that with what has happened in other areas, such as computers and space technology. For example, in 1953 mankind was still four years away from launching a small artificial satellite into space.

And neither was I, that was a tongue-in-check example to show how often people misunderstand probability, and apply greater signifigance to events because of this. I explained that several times, but I keep forgetting you can only read things that support your opinion, and ignore everything else.
So why did you state: "And, oddly enough, the chances of one per floor are the same as the chances of everyone getting off at 10, or of 3 getting off at 2, 4 getting off at 6, and the rest at 10."

If we get it done in that time, I'll be impressed.

It took millions of years the first time, on Earth, at an experimental rate within a few orders of magnitude of 3.15x108. Yet you expect us to do it in a lab, where we can't entirely replicate the conditions (we can't produce the voltage and current of actual lightning, for example), where the experimental rate, at best, is one-billionth the natural rate when the event(s) occured, in one two hundred thousanth of the time?

While we're talking of understanding, how are you with fractions? Apparently not very good...
What you seem to be missing is that, while a lab has some disadvantages over random natural processes, it also has significant advantages. For example, experimenters are free to try and create life from non-life with high-tech equipment in a manner that makes it far easier to create the building blocks of life than it actually was on the primitive earth. In fact, most scientists now believe that the Urey/Miller experiment did not accurately simulate the primitive earth.

[Johnny Pixels]

I'm having driving lessons at the moment, and my instructor asked if I was working or not. I told him I'd been doing non-destructive testing but I left recently. He said he used to do testing of concrete for many years, but became a driving instructor. On Wednesday I got a lift to go to do a bit of part-time work. The guy who drove me asked me what work I had been doing recently, I told him, and he said he'd been involved in concrete testing for many years, but he was made redundant, and he's training to become a driving instructor. He also said that there was a guy in his village that drove a 4x4 with 'Non-Destructive Testing' on the side. The company? The same one I used to work for.

I also met some girls a few weeks back that my friend brought out from work. They were discussing the fact that my friend knew people that they knew and how it was a small world. They asked me if I was in some way connected to anyone to see how far the coincidence went. Unfortunately it stopped with me. Until last week that is, when I found out the surname of one of the girls, and realised her sister taught on a training course I'd been on a few months earlier.

[BillyJoe]

I think that everything said in this thread so far by skeptics is entirely irrelevant. Of course people see patterns and significance in events which are in fact wholly coincidental. This however gives no evidence against the idea that some apparent coincidences are not in fact coincidences. In other words that the events in question are brought about by anomalous means.Is this a hit and run or have you changed your mind about not being interested in discussing synchronicity?

[Interesting Ian]

Is this a hit and run or have you changed your mind about not being interested in discussing synchronicity?

hit and run . . . I think.

[arthwollipot]

Another coincidence: we share the same name!

OMG! There's three of us!!

[BillyJoe]

hit and run . . . I think.Pity, I was hoping you might explain....well, let's start with....

The Anomaly
The Anomaly is a certain philosophical and or spiritual belief system, related to various modern mystic philosophies and beliefs, which asserts that there are certain mathematical, musical, artistic, and physical anomalies which are at their core inexplainable and have mystic and spiritual significance. Moreover, these anomalies are interrelated in a mystical and profound way which may point to an over-all "Anomaly" that is, a singular unexplainable, ineffable mystery of existence.

BJ

[Rodney]

On this date 15 years ago -- Wednesday, June 26, 1991 -- I returned
from an office meeting about noon to find a message to call a "Kathryn Duckers." I tried returning the call, but the phone simply rang and rang at the other end. When I returned from lunch I tried calling again, but the same thing happened. A co-worker then stopped by, and told me that there was a telephone software problem in the Washington, DC area that was preventing most calls from getting through. The problem was finally resolved in the late afternoon, but the next day the phone breakdown was the headline story in the Washington Post, to which I subscribe. I glanced at that story, and then skimmed a sidebar story about individual incidents relating to the breakdown. One of the incidents was about a man who could not get through to his eight-month pregnant wife, and so had to drive to their home to give her a cell phone for emergency use. A short while after reading that, I returned the call to Kathryn Duckers. This time I got through and told her that I had tried returning the call yesterday, but was unsuccessful. She replied: "I understand. Did you happen to read the story in the Washington Post this morning about the man who rushed a cell phone to his pregnant wife?" I said that I had, and she said: "Well, I am that woman." I then answered her business question, and after hanging up, checked the Post story again. Sure enough, the story stated that the pregnant woman's name was Kathryn Duckers.

That was the first and and last time I ever spoke with her.

P.S. Mother Nature apparently decided to commemorate the 15th anniversary of phone chaos in the Washington, DC area with weather chaos. See this article from today's Post -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062600234.html