Coincidence

[Hellbound]

Black holes.

LOL

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

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.

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.

 

[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.) 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...

 

[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?