Coincidence

[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

 

[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.) 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.) 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.

 

[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?

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