titsmurf

I don't think it does.

There is no mysterious force called coincidence that will make a rock suddently fall 2 feet more to the right. Nope. That was a bird that got hit in the head with your rock - a bird which wasn't there the last time you did that exact same rock-throw.

But that bird didn't get there by coincidence either. It went there because it started to rain (not by coincidence, but because of metereological systems influencing each other) and it saw a worm (which came out because it's instinct told it to do so).

People ultimately are nothing but really complex animals either. We may think we have a choice in what we do - but in reality, we'll always make the same decision when all the situations around us remain the same. The one we think is the right one at that time. And those factors that determine our reaction aren't random. Everything is influenced by everything else, and never does anything happen 'just because'. There is always a scientific reason.

Now, if coincidence does not exist - would we then not all just be factors into one giant universal formula? And if it does exist - what and where is it?

Publius

Question of clarity. Are you using the word 'coincidence' to mean 'fate', or are these two different things for you?

titsmurf

Not exactly fate. What I mean is that nothing is random because it all abides by mathematical laws. I should have just said that.

TaiModan

a better question for you, does the past exist? can you prove it?

hotzot

I think therefore I thunk, the past does exist.

__________________
The Bully Boys are here!

GoldenOuroboros

Chaos theory.. sums up what you're looking for I think

__________________
Can you see me grin grin grrriiiiinnnning?!

Loki

but, what if you only think that you thunk?



You say nothing is random, but, we havent investigated everything yet, have we? =)

Yes, you can say that based on existing information, its unlikely that anything is random, but you cant eliminate the possibility that something being random does exist.

And lets say even the simplest thing, such as electron movements is random, then, there is nothing but random (chance, or co-incidence, call it what you will), which is my theory.


And believe it or not, our theories are remarkably similiar, except for one important factor - repeatability.

A simple example - lets say your about to hit a shot in a game of pool. On this shot, an attractive blonde walks by, causing your attention to be diverted, for a split second, and when, and as a result, instead of hitting the ball you were aiming for, you miss, hit another ball, and start a chain reaction that sinks three of your balls.

Your reason would be that a sum of prior events led up to the blonde walking past you at that split second and thus dictated what would happen at the present time, i.e. you sinking many balls instead of one.

My theory: An infinite sum of chances culminated in that blonde walking past you.

Whats the difference, you ask... simple as this. Lets say we could rewind the world to five minutes before you took the shot. By your theory, its certain that the same blonde will walk past you at the same time causing the same reaction.

By my theory, nothing is certain. The blonde may walk by again, but then again, maybe not.

Dragonlich

Interestingly enough, titsmurf's theory was pretty much the norm before Einstein's theories about quantum mechanics; reality is deterministic and "mechanical" (in the sense that our actions are always the same).

After Einstein, we started to realize that the world is anything but deterministic. After all, if sub-atomic particles move randomly, and can even appear and disappear at any time, in any place, how can a combination of those particles (a human, for example) be deterministic? Your brain works with electrons, which randomly choose a route through your brain's pathways. Because this happens at random, it is possible that you'll make a different decision every time you were to "rewind" time to look again. Of course, because of the increased "bandwidth" of often-used pathways, it is likely you'll make the same decision time and time again. Just like it is likely replicated DNA is exactly the same as the original; there is a small chance that a mutation will occur, and this small chance leads to the diversity in present day nature.

This same randomness of reality leads to variations in local wind-speed and direction, variations in spin of a thrown rock, variations in movement of birds, and everything else.

As for your last question, about the giant formula: it's called the "theory of everything", and it's pretty much the holy grail of mathematical physics. It is unlikely this formula will be deterministic.

titsmurf

Very interesting replies, Loki and Dragonlich. It's nice to see other people have thought about this as well. I wasn't aware of the existance of sub-atomic particles, but I'm glad to learn they exist. The thought that everything is pre-determined is quite scary.

So then if I am to understand this correctly, these little guys are more powerful than natural laws. Possibly because they made them. And, as with any law - there are some small loopholes, which they sometimes randomly stumble into (occasionally causing weird shit to happen on our level).

Wouldn't that make them the closest thing to a 'god' which we known to exist?

Loki

titsmurf, my God is chance, luck, co-incidence, call it what you will... which i guess means that my god is sub atomic particles =)

rogue49

question.

Does the phenomenon that scientists have just discovered,
that sub-atomic particles "sync" in spin, even at great distances,
seem to lend credence that perhaps some of the more
macrocosmic levels are in "sync"
thus co-incidence?

or is probability just fuckin' with us?

Just wanted to throw that into the mix.

titsmurf

If they are all moving the same way, then that would logically mean there is something that makes them move. Perhaps these sub-atomic particles are all acting like boats on a giant kosmic ocean, all floating and bopping along on some waves which we can't yet see.

That would indicate that their behavior isn't random. And then we're back where we started.

If what I'm saying is bullshit, feel free to mentally substitute what I just said with something along the lines of: "Yeah, cool dude" and proceed to ignore it.

Dragonlich

A pair of sub-atomic particles spin in sync, no matter what the distance. That does not mean everything is in sync or that behavior isn't random. It only happens in a very specific instance. It probably has something to do with some sort of "wormhole" in space-time between these two particles.

Yes, that does sound like sci-fi, but it's a scientific theory that has been debated (and tested) quite a bit.

Oh, and titsmurf, sub-atomic particles are not "more important than natural laws", becuase they're *part of those natural laws*. You're looking at it from the wrong angle, so to say.

Scarlet119

What I think titsmurf is basically saying is that if the subatomic particles are moving due to cause and effect (the giant cosmic ocean) then the closer you look at it, the more visible or invisible cause and effect there is. it never stops. Basically like holographic film, each piece has the same amount of information as the whole thing. Each look closer has the same sub-atomic and atomic cause and effect as the further view.

roothorick

Ok, time to rock this thread from here to Hong Kong.

I have an interesting theory that things recurse infinitely, and in both directions; that is, those subatomic particles are planets, atoms are solar systems, and molecules are galaxies. At the same time, the planet Earth is but a subatomic particle in an atom, which is part of a molecule. And this keeps going until you come to something that's infinitely big, and you come to something that's infinitely small. Neither of those examples are literal; there obviously isn't a proton/neutron/electron that is a perfect recreation of the planet Earth. But you get the idea. (This brings up some interesting possibilities for the outcome of The Matrix Revolutions but I'll save that for a different thread.) Now, assuming that my theory is true, and assuming that every small part somehow influences the big picture, it's automatically assumed that actions happening over time are predetermined. Or are they? No theory is pure black-and-white; that is, I might be neither entirely correct nor entirely incorrect. Perhaps things do recurse, but not forever. And perhaps at that bottom, there's an entropy pool, a source of chaos. Or perhaps it tops out instead of bottoming out; that is, that there's a finitely large object that is "God" as it contains everything and thus has rule over everything. I can't say this enough: you just don't know.

-EDIT- Whoops, so much for Hong Kong... I'll settle with Miami.

__________________
You shall not listen to me, and you shall not ignore any nonsense before me, nor make any idols representing my nonsense, for I AM THE NONSENSE, and there is no other nonsense besides me.

titsmurf

(Hehe. Yes - that natural laws thing I said is bullshit. That's not how I meanth it, but that is how I said it. Thanks for pointing that out.)

Yeah. If those particles spin the same way, there must be something that makes them do that. So even though they particles may be responsable for the chaos on our atomic level - there is order in theirs.

Hence: Chaos, and therefor the possibility of something happening independently - and not because it was made to happen by everything else, does not exist.

Dragonlich

Those particles are *pairs*. They spin the same way because of that. They are linked, hence they spin the same way. That does not mean that independent particles spin the same way.

However, assuming particles spin the same way: does it mean anything at all? Well, we still can't predict how the particles will spin - we need to see one to know how the other one spins. In short: they spin randomly, even if they spin the same.

If there are a million particles in a given area, and two of those spin the same because they're linked, one can hardly say there's order. The rest of the particles spin independently, and we cannot predict any of those movements.

So that leads us back to chance, again. Did you know there is a small but finite chance that your entire body will suddenly shift two meters to the right at this very instant? That is because of those sub-atomic particles: it is possible, although very, very unlikely. Would you suggest that that event is somehow predetermined, or influenced by something else?

Interesting factoid: it is impossible (as in: IMPOSSIBLE) to predict both the direction *and* the speed of an electron. Cannot be done. Ever.

rogue49

hmm...interesting points.

I didn't think my tidbit of info would add so much to the discussion.

BTW, dragonlich...minor correction.
You cannot predict the "position" & "velocity" of a electron at the same time.
If you predict the position exactly, the velocity is off the scale.
If you predict the velocity exactly, the position is off the charts.

The electron has a particle aspect, but when trying to predict where it is,
scientists now have certain "probablity" areas where it might be,
and it's pattern of probablity let's us know what state it's in.
and that helps show how it will interact will other particles,
especially in chemical terms.

But I've liked many of your points otherwise, good words.
Thanks, I really haven't looked into this new phenomenon yet,
and what it really means.
That's why I brought it up, to see what others thought in this context.

Dragonlich

Rogue, I meant that, and had hoped I had said that. Turns out I didn't.

And just to slightly edit your statement: the problem with measurement is that you have to measure one of the aspects "position" and "velocity" with *something*. This something influences the electron, changing the other aspect, and thus making it "impossible" to measure.

Right?

rogue49

Theoretically true, although not always the fact.
Like I said we can measure, certain aspects of it,
just not exact.

But you are correct too, the tools we use to measure sometimes do affect the very thing we are measuring,
especially in Quantum Mechanics

The concept is described in the idea of "Schrodinger's Cat",
that and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

You know...for some reason, I've never really liked that idea,
not the "Uncertainty Principle", but the whole "Cat" thing.
almost as if it's off...not quite right.
hmm...

MSD

More on the Chaos Theory

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...415158-5417767

You may find this book interesting. I couldn't put it down once i started it.

rogue49

heh...got it
in Hard cover & soft cover.

You want to REALLY mess with your mind try these by Rudy Rucker.
"Infinity and the Mind" (everything you ever wanted to know about infinity)
and
"The Fourth Dimension" (a study of higher space)

Your brain will be twisted for a bit after.

Dragonlich

Oh, you mean like where you rotate sub-atomic elements, and you sometimes have to rotate a particle 2 * 360 degrees to get the original front-side back again?

FallenAvatar

Everything that happens is because cause and effect, there is really no other way to explain it. This rock fell. Why? Because something made it. I was born? Because my parents consieved me. To say things are random is to say nothing happens for a reason. Cause and Effect..

Dragonlich

Er... no. Perhaps the large-scale world seems to have a large amount of cause-and-effect, but the small-scale (sub-atomic) world does not have this.

Just as an example: if you suddenly get a brilliant idea, is that caused by anything? I'd say that a bunch of electrons took a turn right where everyone before them turned left - randomly. Is that right turn caused by anything? Nope, it's just a matter of luck.

FallenAvatar

If an electron moves to the right that's an effect. Nothing can just happen... it has a start, that's a cause.

MacGnG

if you want to live in a universe of paranoia and conspiracies against you, then there are no coincidences;
otherwise live free and dont worry about it

Slims

Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Dragonlich

A start is a cause. Okay, and then what?

If that cause gives a 50-50 chance of the electron going left of right, does that mean anything at all? Isn't that just coincidence?

coulrophobia

I can't sound intelligent in any way but I can never believe that something happens for NO reason. I an electron turns right it's because natural law forced it to. not because it "wanted to".
How is it logical that nothing controlls them.. electrons are attracted to protons wich makes it a force that pulls them towards each other.
I haven't studied this more than like at highschool level so I might have missed out on the fact that a microcosmos is based on slump. cosmos means order.
If you guys are attached to think that you have free will and stuff thats okay. but i believe that everything that happens at ANY level depents on everything that has happened before. Since the beginning of time this time around, and before that the last.
I we were to decide what to to think we would be in control of the electrons. Could we not then control anything anywhere.
I'm sorry. I'm just a fool..

Tom Thumb

Coincidence is just our term for a large amount of random happenings occuring in a manner that we deem unlikely. So, sure, it exists.

__________________
My name is marketing. Now buy my product.

Podmore

Not to be anal or anything, but the word "coincidence" doesn't imply anything mystical. In fact, it's the opposite. It means "A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged."

rat

I think that several things separate themselves out when you hit a human level.

When looking at the decision of that blond to walk past the pool table, the subsequent decision to look at said blond, and ultimately, the mental trigger to follow through on the shot though distracted are three very distinct and very separate occurences, that, if repeated enough would create a pattern exactly the opposite of what occurred in the first trial, thus proving that mathematics does not control this earth and its inhabitants any more than a pure science does.

Let's take this trial with the blond. To start, it's unable to be repeated in pure form again. On a subconscious level, you as a person, notice movement and move to focus on it before you are consciously aware of what you are doing. However, were you to repeat this trial with the same blond, the same player of pool (you) and the exact same setup with the balls on the table, on some level after the first trial, you would be conscious that she would be moving past your table, thus invalidating the experiment.

Also, from a purely physics side of things, the word entropy would do some good in this conversation. Entropy, loosely defined would be the sum total of random or chaotic movement in the universe, even on the smallest of levels.

__________________

Dragonlich

Let's throw in another bone:

It is said by a lot of physicists that there are many more dimensions than we can see (3 spacial + 1 time). In fact, according to some theories (string theory among them) there are upwards of 10 or even 20 dimensions.

Now, suppose there are large-dimensional blobs of matter (or strings of energy, or whatever form they have). Suppose that those bits of matter collide. Would the resulting 3+1-dimensional effects be seen as pure chance by us, because we simply cannot see those higher-dimensional things?

And no, it's not my theory; I saw a TV documentary once, with some physicist telling about this theory. He claimed that there were high-dimensional planes (mathematical ones) with small bumps in them. If those planes, and those bumps in particular, were to hit each other, one would have a huge discharge of energy, which might explain the big bang. It would also mean there could be big bangs all over the place, all the time. (These would create their own 3+1-dimensional (or other-dimensional) universes.

Casdin

You know, I was sitting up tonight and I was just wondering the exact same thing....what a coinci...

I believe that coincidence does exist. If it didn't then everything would have to be mapped out...some 'master plan'.

I refuse to believe my life is not my own, to choose what I do.

Dragonlich

Here's a rather important question: what exactly *is* coincidence?

Is it
a) something that happens by chance, i.e. pure luck.
b) something that happens which wasn't planned by God/caused by (deterministic) natural laws.
c) something completely different.

If the current trends in physics are to be believed, we might eventually find that elusive "theory of everything", which will enable us to understand or even predict everything that happens around us. That does *not* mean that those predictions will be deterministic; we might find that the theory has a large (truly) random element in it.

If this theory is ever found, it might show that everything has a "reason", in the sense that it is caused by something else. However, that does NOT mean there is some plan behind. In fact, even if the theory is totally deterministic (non-random), if the equations are complex enough, one might still say that coincidence *seems* to exist because we cannot predict anything anyway.

Anyone?

Loki

rat, you missed my point... assuming your not using the same example to discuss something else.. if you are, im sorry . What i was saying was that if determinism was the underlying reason, one should be able to rewind the world to 5 minutes, hell, even 2 years before the event and still get the same results. (same blonde walking by, you getting distracted and hitting the ball incorrectly).

If co-incidence was the underlying reason, then even rewinding the world 5 minutes ago, let alone 2 years ago, would mean that there is no likelyhood of the event happening again.

duckznutz

?

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.