I don't understand "tbh." I've spent a career drenched in acronyms and contractions, and once when I looked up an in-house reference for an acronym that I wasn't familiar with, I got about 2 dozen possibilities. Instead of being an efficient form of communication, it was anti-communication. But that's an aside.
You have free will and you can disagree. But you can't claim that reason is on your side. You are embarking on denial of a fact, and that does NOT ground you in reality and truth.
I think it is a perspective thing. Iām kind of a fan of the butterfly effect. Even though things like birthdays seem to be coincidental, I would argue that they are the micro things that fine tune frequencies that create our reality.
I suspected that's what it might be, but I am worn out with guessing games.
It's entirely a matter of the numbers. Divide the population (360 million) by the number of days in the year, and the result is inescapable. You get a similar result if you estimate how many people are having lunch between noon and 1 PM. No fine tuning. You can, in fact discern the effect of intervention by the departure from statistical behavior (which is the norm...and leads to coincidences).
This is why one must take special measures to determine whether a given event can be explained as coincidence, and keep that in mind. There is a tendency on this page to equate a low probability with no probability, but that is a willful dishonesty. Traffic accidents are low probability events, but I have had a head-on collision when I least expected it. The whole science of reliability engineering is the effort to make undesirable events (system failures) a very low probability. The design objective for airliners is a probability of one in ten million for a critical in-flight failure. Sadly, it doesn't rule them out. Doing better is too expensive.
I don't understand "tbh." I've spent a career drenched in acronyms and contractions, and once when I looked up an in-house reference for an acronym that I wasn't familiar with, I got about 2 dozen possibilities. Instead of being an efficient form of communication, it was anti-communication. But that's an aside.
You have free will and you can disagree. But you can't claim that reason is on your side. You are embarking on denial of a fact, and that does NOT ground you in reality and truth.
Sorry, tbh = To Be Honest
I think it is a perspective thing. Iām kind of a fan of the butterfly effect. Even though things like birthdays seem to be coincidental, I would argue that they are the micro things that fine tune frequencies that create our reality.
I suspected that's what it might be, but I am worn out with guessing games.
It's entirely a matter of the numbers. Divide the population (360 million) by the number of days in the year, and the result is inescapable. You get a similar result if you estimate how many people are having lunch between noon and 1 PM. No fine tuning. You can, in fact discern the effect of intervention by the departure from statistical behavior (which is the norm...and leads to coincidences).
This is why one must take special measures to determine whether a given event can be explained as coincidence, and keep that in mind. There is a tendency on this page to equate a low probability with no probability, but that is a willful dishonesty. Traffic accidents are low probability events, but I have had a head-on collision when I least expected it. The whole science of reliability engineering is the effort to make undesirable events (system failures) a very low probability. The design objective for airliners is a probability of one in ten million for a critical in-flight failure. Sadly, it doesn't rule them out. Doing better is too expensive.