TIME Magazine cover - September 8, 1997…Just a few more 'Coincidences'...👇👇👇
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
Wait.... so you're telling me that you randomly picked a human you have no knowledge of and no information about, and you chose a random foot squared location, and you found that person on one guess?
Er.....
I kinda think you missed the point.
Think of it this way:
On a chess board you have 6 different-shaped objects of the same colour: king, queen, bishop, knight, rook and pawn. Now lets see how many ways we can line those up in a single row of the chess board.
Start with the king. We can place that in any of 8 squares. Now add the queen. We have 7 squares left so the number of ways we can arrange the king and queen on that row will be 56 (7 times 8). We can work through all the pieces like that and find that we have 87654*3=20160 ways in total of arranging those pieces.
Now lets us pick just one arrangement. What are the odds of that happening by chance? It is 1 in 20,160. All I did was arbitrarily divide the surface of the globe into one foot squares and see how many ways we could arrange the eight billion people. The odds of that happening by chance are astronomical. Did it happen? Yes!
The way you work out that number is the same for all problems of this type. There are 8 positions so think of all the numbers from 8 downwards that need to be multiplied together. Now we need to take into account the number of pieces. That is 6 so, in fact, we only need to multiply together the first 6 of those numbers.
So for the people problem we need to multiply all the numbers from 1,000,000,000,000,000 down to 1 together but, in fact, because there are only 8,000,000,000 people we only need to do that for the first 8 billion numbers. That is why I started from 1,000,008,000,000,000 to make the arithmetic look easier. The actual numbers are bigger than the ones I used so the result will have even more zeroes than I quoted.
But, not by chance. You arranged them.
Yes. But it didn't happen by chance. Your intent was the factor here. It would not have happened if you hadn't arranged the pieces. Even if your choice was arbitrary.
Try this. You have 6 different pieces. You have a board with 64 squares, sitting on a table 2 meters away from you. Now, from 2 meters away, throw the 6 different pieces in the direction of the board, all in one throw. What are the chances of the 6 pieces landing in ANY arrangement on the board, standing up, each positioned on 1 square each, not straddling two or more squares?
Not gonna happen. Ain't gonna happen. You can try to calculate the probability, but without direct intent, without you deliberately taking the pieces and positioning them on the board, it just ain't gonna happen.
So, throw a bunch of posts on 8 chan and 4 chan and 8 kun, and see how many can hit within 60 seconds of a tweet, BEFORE a tweet, by a president of the states united.
By chance, it ain't gonna happen again, and again and again.
(And in case you missed it, "how many until it is mathematically impossible" is in reference to the drops / tweet dynamic. Not the numbers Purkiss quoted. Also, read "realistically impossible" instead of "mathematically impossible".
Do you think the universe, the world you live in, and every event in your life is chance? Using your reasoning, it might be possible that a kazillion monkeys hitting a kazillion keyboards will eventually write the works of shakespeare, but um, no, it ain't gonna happen. And, if it ain't gonna happen, is it really 'possible'?
Thanks for the effort you've invested to try and make a point, but, no...
I was just trying to demonstrate that just because the odds against a particular event appear large or even astronomical it does not rule out it happening.
The point is that if you look hard enough you can find all kinds of links after the event.
Throwing chess pieces at the board just reinforces the point for me. There are not just 64 ways the pieces can land so the odds against any particular result are even greater - but it happened. So, there you are looking at a result that is so unlikely it could never have happened. See the problem?
To demonstrate causality and not just correlation you need to define a method as well. So, in the case of this post, you need to explain who was arranging those dates and differences before you could attribute anything other than pure chance to it.
Thanks. Not a mathematician. I've leave it there.
But if you are talking about the OP, yeah, personally, I don't find that sort of stuff convincing, on its own. All the juxtaposition of those dates. That sort of thing has a low level of convincibility for me. So maybe we're on the same page with that.
However, Q's credibility is a different matter, because of the corroborating data.
"that just because the odds against a particular event appear large or even astronomical it does not rule out it happening."
OK, then yeah, I accept that that is technically true. But then, it was never these things that primarily convinced me in my views re: Q.