it's really hard to convince certain people that winning a lottery is fairly impossible. they are mislead by the fact that "the probability for an UNspecified person to win is 100%".
Science can't really rule either way until it figures out how exactly lumps of matter and controlled chemical reactions can start moving around on their own. The other problem is that we can't really calculate the probability of life arising when we've only got one example: Earth. Like you show at the beginning of the video, you can't figure odds if you don't have more than one.
I guess the sort of "coincidences" I've experienced have significant complexities or meanings in their connection than anything being described here. Sometimes the nature of the connection itself is almost as significant as the connected events. I realize this is rather abstract but even at that level, it is consistent frequency with which they occur that compels the thought of a cosmos operating on something other than pure blind chance. Not a strong argument here, just an observation.
i was watching this video in statistics class this morning. when i got home i was watching tv, and a show referenced a man wearing a suit of bells (as mentioned in the dream segment). what a coincidence.
This video doesn't prove there are no supernatural forces. It just points out the fact that the odds of it being supernatural forces are much less than you think.
@dueycrim there are no odds for supernatural forces as there is no way to quantify their existence in statistical terms. What we do know is that there is no evidence for supernatural forces and even though we can't prove there aren't supernatural forces, we assume there are no supernatural forces. Why? For the same reason you don't believe in my invisible dragon, Shrek or fairies. Just because there is no evidence against their existence doesn't mean we should even contemplate their existence.
good video but i have a problem with every thing that happens in the universe just being coincidence because given the vastness of the universe and given the laws of quantum physics people should just pop in to existence or people should pop out of existence with 100% probability. even though the odds are 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000000000 it should still happen.
@thewriterjustin The event you describe of things just popping into or out of existence would not happen simply ebcause what you describe cannot happen. This isn't a probability issue, especially as probability can only operate within reality. What you describe is supernatural in itself therefore irrelevent to any legitimate discussion. You can't even put a probability on that event occuring, where would you even get the umbers from?
@chimaeraproductions in quantum physics there is a small probability of things or people just popping in to realty fully formed. if you read the books by miticho kaku a physicist he talks about this. If i remember right but look at it this way there is something called virtual particles which pop in and out of realty in random numbers and last for a very short time and since they pop up in random order the chance of them forming a fully formed person or vw bug or bed ect. are really good......
but remember if anything has even the smallest chance to happen it will with time according to the laws of probability nothing is impossible. even if the chance is 1 in 10^ infinate-1 it must happen given time. thats why i don't believe in chance has to do with everything.
@thewriterjustin "if anything has even the smallest chance to happen it will with time"
Not necessarily. Some things may have an insufficiently small window of possibility due to finite existence: it's no longer possible for me to shake hands with Carl Sagan because he is dead.
"but i have a problem with every thing that happens in the universe just being coincidence"
Please note, this video isn't saying 'everything is coincidence'. It's saying that many things claimed to have a connection don't or may not have such an assumed connection.
@thewriterjustin That's not true because there are still laws of nature. There is no chance that a person will simply vanish, or appear. Those things violate natural laws.
There's a difference between things that are coincidence and are assigned meaning by people, and things that are completely impossible or close enough to impossible to be unlikely to ever happen.
@thewriterjusti what's the opposite of "coincidence" for you? and how do you define "coincidence"? what does "just pop into existence" mean for you? i think this video is more about asking whether the things that are assumed to be connected directly aren't connected that directly at all - and on the other hand: the things that are assumed to have nothing to do with each other are way more directly connected with each other than many people assume.
...It can happen, should happen, and WILL happen, given *enough time,* but it will not happen in an area detectable by us (most likely) until every star in the universe has fizzled completely. It will take trillions and trillions of years until those types of events have a decent chance of happening.
@thewriterjustin lol, there are estimated 10^80 atoms in the observable universe, this is why people do not have 100% probability to pop in to existence if the odds are 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000000000. Besides, maybe they do, did you check everywhere? Andromeda galaxy, did you check there yet?
I was going to say 24, and then you said 23! School teachers know that in most of their classes, even smaller ones, the chance of two kids having the same birthday is very good.
How can 89 people dislike this video? It's all based on statistical facts lol. He's hardly even mentioned God, he's just explaining that coincidence is not necessarily a big deal. And he did it VERY well!
This is a great video that I watched for the first time today, before watching Derren Brown's The Secret of Luck. In the show Brown suggests luck is something we create for ourselves by taking opportunities. Ultimately, a guy who considers himself to be 'unlucky' takes an opportunity and rolls a die after predicting the outcome will be 4 on the third roll. He is right. Admittedly, I was mind blown and I don't know what to make of it. Is it coincidence? Help, please.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT!! I thought about watching some derren brown's videos before watching this video, and here you are talking about derren brown! NO KIDDING!
@QualiaSoup says in this video that events (such as rolling a 6) are more likely when large numbers of observation are considered which I don't understand because surely the probability of rolling a 6 is still 1/6 after an infinite number of observations, given the die is an 'honest' die. Then he says there is no way of predicting when an event may happen so predicitng the outcome of a 4 on the third roll and being right is just pure coincidence?
@tilemacro I said nothing about monkeys typing 'anything coherent'. The specific scenario was a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare - a vast and highly exact sequence.
The theoretical experiment only uses the monkey as code for 'random generator', and the point is that monkey behaviour is far too constrained and patterned to generate the kind of randomness required.
@QualiaSoup If the monkey has a single mutation (which it will) in its typing pattern then in an infinite amount of time it'll still write all of literature and all future literature written on earth.
@FreeGluon "f the monkey has a single mutation (which it will) in its typing pattern"
I'd like you to explain exactly what that is supposed to mean, and how it demonstrates that a monkey - one that exhibits exactly the kind of behaviour we see in living monkeys today - will therefore type in exact sequential order every letter, space and piece of punctuation that constitutes the entire works of Shakespeare. A single random element in a highly ordered pattern does not lead to random data.
@QualiaSoup Yes but if the event is random, then it will happen in an infinitely large cluster (ie the works of Shakespeare). Imagine a dice. It has say 10,000 sides. All sides except one have a letter 's' on it, the remaining side has a random character. Just as when you role a dice you may get two sixes together you may here get two of this character (with odds of (1/10,000)^n*1/30(where n is the amount of rolls and by metaphor the size of the segment of text)). Despite this tiny (cont.)
@FreeGluon chance, given an infinite amount of time it will write any given finite string. If you believe the monkey cannot produce a random event then I shall just invoke quantum mechanics and state that quantum fluctuations will eventually cause the monkey's matter to transform into a young and enthusiastic William Shakespeare who will then retype it personally.
Monkey behaviour is not random, and certainly not in the excessively sustained way required to reproduce Shakespeare's works.
"quantum fluctuations will eventually cause the monkey's matter to transform into Shakespeare"
Aside from the absurdity of stating that QFs could turn monkeys into specific historical figures, Shakespeare would no longer be a monkey at a typewriter, which utterly destroys your argument.
@QualiaSoup If there is any possibility of the monkey doing something randomly (which due to the chaos of the universe there is) then this sort of event will cluster together given an infinite amount of time. This "& certainly not in the excessively sustained way" & "absurdity" are frankly absurd concepts in the context of infinity. As t goes to ∞, probability of any event goes to 1. The Bard idea just illustrates that given ∞ time every arrangement of matter & every event will happen.
@FreeGluon No, the Bard idea only shows you're not dealing with the original scenario, which concerns a *monkey*, not an 'infinitely morphing entity' typing forever. By changing the scenario, you're only attacking a straw man. (Even if the monkey morphed into something genetically identical with Shakespeare, that wouldn't make it Shakespeare, only a duplicate.)
The only relevant fact here is that monkeys can't produce truly random data, and merely extending the timeframe doesn't change that.
@QualiaSoup No, it is you attacking a straw man as you clearly don't read my comment and keep coming back to the Bard idea. If you are stating that the monkey is unaffected by the laws of physics then yes, I agree with you, however this "fact... monkeys can't produce truly random data" is a completely unverified although if you wish to add it to the original scenario then of course you are right. However brains operate under the laws of quantum mechanics where everything is based on probability,
@FreeGluon I presented the original scenario (a monkey typing forever) which you distorted. *Yours* is the straw man. And I returned to the Bard idea because *you* mentioned it again, so don't accuse me of not reading your comments.
"If... then yes, I agree with you"
Good.
Any expert cryptographer will tell you that even human attempts to type random strings do not generate randomness. 'Complex-looking' does not equal random.
@FreeGluon "If you are stating that the monkey is unaffected by the laws of physics"
Since we're already talking about a monkey that lives forever, it was obviously never a monkey that would be subject to all the rules that apply to mortal monkeys. The point of the thought experiment is that a monkey is continuing to act like a monkey for eternity.
And besides, if normal physics applied, the typewriter would stop functioning and disintegrate in no time.
I promise you guys that this is true. I am the youngest of 5, my two oldest brothers share the same birthday and they are two years apart. My two older sisters share the same birthday but are 1 year apart. This is very odd, but because there is so many families it was going to happen eventually.
This video reminds me of something I read from a Terry Pratchett, Discworld book.
It was determinded that the probability of this happening was one in a million, but wizards had determinded that one in a million chances cropped up nine times out of ten.
@OooHesGood I hope you didn't really pay attention to the video. Because if you did, you are really stupid. You don't get the concept of it one bit, still you judge it as the stupidest thing.
And for your fantastic orange story, have you ever heard of gravity?
@Babyhowdy233 If the first scenario was saying 'a specific person' has a 1 in 23 chance of a match, that would indeed be 'utter bollocks'. But it wasn't. It was saying that the statistical chance of '2 people' in a group sharing a birthday - that is *any* match - is roughly 1 in 23. So it's irrelevant that you don't know anyone who shares your particular birthday. There are countless matches among people I've known. If you know thousands of folks, that must be true for you also - by definition.
@Babyhowdy233 Here's a site explaining the birthday paradox and it includes a random number generator so you can run your own tests. betterexplained[DOT]com/articles/understanding-the-birthday-paradox/
This is the stupidest video ever... I wouldnt say there is a God because someone shares the first name as I.. I wouldnt be shocked if I shared a Bday with a room full of 23 people. lol... No one is shocked when someone shares a favorite movie... Explain the odds of this jerk, my sister was walking down the st. on vacation, about to grab an orange from a tree, my dad said Dont touch it, if God wanted you to have it he would give it to you and right then the orange fell and HIT her on the head! =)
If I predict a toffee tree will grow in my garden and find there to be one the following day- it doesn't matter how many outlandish predictions I made that did not come to pass.
@gnamp Bullshit. I could spend a day saying a whole bunch of things and have one of them come true the next day. That doesn't mean I predicted it would happen. I stated many things that day. One of them was bound to happen not because I said it would happen, but because it matched what I said would happen.
@Moshikashitenai If you made a 'million' statements- all of which were completely impossible, and one, just one of them were to come truw- that would make you very, very special.
@gnamp If u Made A Million Statements All Of Which That Were Possible, And One Just One Was Not To Become True.... U My Friend Have Super Natural Powers
@HDLuxyHD nope- that doesn't work, does it? Try "If you made a million statements, each word of which 'must' begin with a capital letter- you my friend, are a cretin".
@Moshikashitenai that doesn't surprise me in the least. Ofcourse you can't tell, you've been unable to follow a logical argument from the very start. Come on dumb-ass THINK! It makes perfect sense.
You guys have it all figured out, don't you? Sorry but I have to say this: Everything he says in this video is obvious, don't think you are that more smart than the ones that think differently about this subjects because you are not. I'm not saying you are dumb, you are just ignorant about many things. Your equations are too simplified.
Here's a recent pretty astonishing one. A few days ago, for the first time in ages, I suddenly decided to listen to song after song from REM. All the 'Collapse into Now' links were still up on youtube. The next night, at midnight, I heard on the radio that they split up. i agree with everything you say but although the law of large numbers says that coincidences as we call them should happen, it's difficult to predict exactly what will happen.that's why it's fascinating to us. I am a factor too.
@mjoraid yes. the law of attraction.at the risk of seeming a negative strereotype of new age, there is that side of things in reality. i don't think it's a scientific law, but it does tie in with psychology. Richard Dawkins at times says that what you feel has no necessary connection with the truth. actually, it might do. what you gravitate towards as a person is part of what makes the bigger picture.
@narutofire18 I originally had "Arachnids have 8 legs" and meant to change the whole thing but missed the number change (to 6) and realised the oversight just after uploading.
Still, as it gets cut off after the 'le', I can now claim it was an entirely different sentence: eg. "Insects have 8 left stigmata on their abdomen"(!)
What about the fact that the moon is the exact size and distance from the sun to fit perfectly over it during an eclipse? Expliquez-moi cela, Mr. Dawkins
@HelloWerldLawl Our Earth is very unique. But we recognize this uniqueness only because we live here. A solar eclipse is a man made observation of a specific event experienced on our planet. Outside the mind of a human being, outside of conciousness a solar eclipse is insignificant. The nature of a human mind puts value and interest on the rarity of something, and because a solar eclipse is a rare celestial event our planet experiences we put interest into it's uniqueness.
If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.
(cont.)... While we should approach everything with a critical eye, we should also be open to the POSSIBILITY of clairvoyance even if it doesn't fit into Science's grand scheme of things.
(continued)... the existence of clairvoyance hasn't been scientifically proven, that it's a load of bullshit. I'm saying people ought to be open to the possibility of clairvoyance, even if it doesn't yet fit into science's grand scheme of things.
@Kobokon For one to hypothesize that clairvoyance is real, one would have to develop a theory to explain it. Are there any theories that exclude the use of mysticism?
@TacticusPrime But isn't it the other way around? Don't you need a hypothesis first, before you develop it into a theory? We can still hypothesize that clairvoyance is real without having a full-proof theory on the matter. If we limit our understanding of the universe to only those theories that science presents us (some of which, btw, have been proven wrong in the past), how are we to think for ourselves? Again, I return to my original point...
@Kobokon A hypothesis would be something like, "A human brain can be sensitive to the electromagnetic wave generation of other brains, and thus know what they know. We should do studies and test the sensitivity of mammal brains to the wave patterns of other mammal brains."
You can't say, "I bet clairvoyance is real. I'm going to behave like it is until someone proves it isn't."
There are things that are possible but unproven. The existence of intelligent aliens for one. Psychics? No.
@TacticusPrime I agree: It would be foolish to believe in something just because it hasn't been proven wrong. But I'm not talking about belief. Belief is irrelevant. Right now, we're talking fact. You cannot state as fact that there is no such thing as psychics. That's as pretentious as it is ignorant.
@Kobokon Then we can't say that there is no such thing as bigfoot or fortune telling or homeopathy either. Scientists HAVE ALREADY taken a serious look at all these phenomena. You think scientists wouldn't love to remembered as the guy who up ended the current understanding of a topic? But until the larger scientific community recognizes the shift, it's our responsibility as laymen to reject fringe "science." Remember, people are liers.
"No one has ever demonstrated clairvoyant abilities under properly controlled conditions" is a bold statement. Just because such a demonstration hasn't been made public, doesn't mean there has never been one. I know if I were clairvoyant, I would keep it on the DL (I wouldn't want the government kidnapping me and doing tests on my brain). To assert, as fact, that there has never been a legit instance of clairvoyance is close minded.
@Kobokon Or it's the natural and default response to a stupid claim. If someone claims to have eaten a sandwich, then it would be reasonable to take them at their word. If they claim to have eaten a dragon, then the reasonable response would be to consider them full of shit.
Sometimes seemingly ridiculous ideas are true. For instance, the sun does not orbit us as it seems to, but the other way around. But we believe this because of evidence. Not because it sounds cool.
@TacticusPrime I understand that the idea of eating a dragon is outlandish and silly, but how can you compare that to the possibility of a sixth sense? There are many studies out there indicating at least a slight tendency for psychic abilities in humans (as well as many other animals). This "sixth sense" seems very absurd to most people because modern western science isn't yet capable of accounting for it. So most believers in western science don't think it has any credibility.
@Kobokon What do you mean 6th? Humans have way more than 5 senses. Like Proprioception, the sense that tells us where the parts of our body are without looking at them. We have 9 senses at the outside. Do you know anything about science?
Where are the studies that suggest humans have telepathic abilities? Who conducted them and how? Who funded them? Do you really think that modern capitalism wouldn't market the shit out it?
@TacticusPrime "We have 9 senses at the outside" you say... Aside from proprioception and the basic five, what are the other two? (just curious) The senses I'm talking about are the senses we use to perceive our external world.
And do I know anything about science? Do YOU know anything about etiquette? Are you trying to add to the discussion or make blunt jabs at me?
Anyways, you're missing my original point. All I'm saying is that it's pretentious of western science to assert that since....
@Kobokon Well there's our sense of pain, which is not an overloading of touch sensors but a distinct phenomena. Our ability to sense temperature... our sense of equilibrium... and a multitude of inner senses, like our vomit reflexes, that are difficult to specifically classify.
I think that the literal interpretation of that statement sort of takes away credence to the intention of the person whome first said it.
The obvious statement they were trying to make was in an infinite amount of time, the highly improbable, even the impossible, becomes very probable to the point where assuming it wouldn't is absurd. If there is an imaginable way for a chimp to type shakespeare, in a true infinity will happen because all that is possible will happen.
and lol at using the birthday paradox. entropy probability is not the same probability you are using. If a truck with billions of toothpicks tips over and all those toothpicks spill on the highway in an exact replica model of new york city down to street level, that is going to take countless times for that to happen. there are many more disordered states than ordered ones. this isnt birthdays. there are only 365 birthdays, there are countless numbers of disordered states.
Penose may have impeccable math...that simply did not take into account the Birthday Paradox (which, I might add, is used as an attack against even the strongest crypto if it isn't implemented right).
Also, Penrose made his calculation how long ago? Physics has advanced a great deal in the past decades.
It is from like 3 years ago, and nothing has changed in that time. Would you care to specifically take on his math instead of just saying he is wrong with generalities.
As far as the birthday thing, every birthday doesn't have equal odds. A person chosen at random is far more likely to have a September birthday than any other month due to the large amount of sex people have over the holidays. After that, there are a few times of year that are more likely than most. So, you really only need three or four random people to have the odds be in favour of them sharing a birthday.
@TheCeejReturns Whose holidays? Only 300 million people live in the U.S. 1.5 billion live in China. 1.1 billion live in India. They don't have the same holidays as us.
Who are the "us" you're referring to? I don't have ANY holidays, but that doesn't change the fact that the month with, by far, the highest birthrate is September.
My 1970's era, heavily-Southern-Baptist school district made a religiously-based decision *not* to include instruction about probability and statistics in our basic mathematics curriculum specifically because they believed it would "lead to gambling." As it turns out, it's likely there was an even darker, less paternalistic reason for their keeping us in ignorance, eh?
@accebertsmith Bahahah. If you include instruction about probability and statistics, you're more likely NOT to gamble because you'll realize that the odds are against you.
How would you explain telepathic, detailed experiences? Or psychics who are called by police to help resolve cases? I agree that meeting someone with the same birthday has a high likelihood and other similar 'statistics.' However, there are experiences that cannot be explained mathematically or scientifically for now.
@bohemianwomanful no successful "telepathic detailed experience" has ever been recorded scientifically under controlled circumstances and published in a journal for all to see and scrutinize. Because this hasn't happened "telepathic, detailed experiences" effectively don't exist and there is no need to explain them.
And further more just because an experience cannot be explained (the why) doesn't mean that an experience cannot be documented (the what).
@bohemianwomanful And as far as the police who call on psychics...just because a person of authority makes a decision that doesn't inherently mean that they are right. Having authority and having knowledge are two different things. And one can have either without the other.
Sylvia Brown is an example of how psychic powers measure up when psychics make specific predictions about cases and later objective evidence is obtained.
@HaploidCell You still need this pattern searching and matching if crossing the street for example, the city is still a jungle for most. Think what would happen if we didn't have this or even had a reduced pattern matching ability. You would be missing out on the stock market, most of the scientific fields, public health issues, be counterproductive...
The problem is not our brain being overactive, the problem is mis- and under-education in the fields of mathematics, statistics and probability
The issue is an evolutive one. Evolution does it's thing, really there's nothing we can conciusly do about it--- well that unless you are a women and care so much about this things that would not marry-have unprotected sex with any man that carries that type of behaviour. ;)
Think about this simple demonstration next time you pray for something and it actually happens. Better yet, write down every single time you pray for something specific to happen at a certain time on a certain day. The results are due to random chance, not the "power" of prayer. Scientifically conducted studies have consistently shown this to be true. For just one of hundreds of examples of large, reliable, impartial studies on the subject, Google
@TheRealBobV3 Yes, but it's not just your name on there. There are a few dozen names on there. There's over 284,000 people that have seen this. Someone is BOUND to share there name with something in this video. As QualiaSoup explained, coincidences are not mathematically improbable. They are to be expected.
the other day i randomly mashed the key board, and it typed "Girl I've been thinking alot" perfectly with capital letters and all, and i had been thinking about a girl haha, coincidences do happen
I bet you had fun coming up with possible dream sequences. :)
Zotov13 1 day ago
it's really hard to convince certain people that winning a lottery is fairly impossible. they are mislead by the fact that "the probability for an UNspecified person to win is 100%".
darthrigel 3 days ago
Great video. Wish I had dreams as interesting as yours ;)
Wulfyn99 3 days ago
wow...monkeys love the letter S
albelnox5454 4 days ago in playlist Science, Psychology and the Paranormal/Supernatural
did anyone see polyestirine monsters in the dream bit
1yeahrightdotcom 6 days ago
accidents, deaths, and disasters are only "common" features of someones waking reality if they're in the movie final destination.
ThePoopskoop 1 week ago
7 Billion now.... Fascinating piece.
pabobfin 1 week ago
Science can't really rule either way until it figures out how exactly lumps of matter and controlled chemical reactions can start moving around on their own. The other problem is that we can't really calculate the probability of life arising when we've only got one example: Earth. Like you show at the beginning of the video, you can't figure odds if you don't have more than one.
blaze1372003 1 week ago
Someone might have said this already, but you are wrong about the monkeys.
jurviz 1 week ago
I guess the sort of "coincidences" I've experienced have significant complexities or meanings in their connection than anything being described here. Sometimes the nature of the connection itself is almost as significant as the connected events. I realize this is rather abstract but even at that level, it is consistent frequency with which they occur that compels the thought of a cosmos operating on something other than pure blind chance. Not a strong argument here, just an observation.
randytate 2 weeks ago
this video makes me happy because it verifies a way of thinking that people treat me like an idiot for ^-^
sKRAPtheRIpPER 2 weeks ago
@sKRAPtheRIpPER funny, those people being the sceptical ones :D
sKRAPtheRIpPER 2 weeks ago
ZOMG! i love the Rocky Horror Show too, we are like two birds of one feather^^
GreenOnionBrother 1 month ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
6:58 is a great was to learn vocabulary.
iSOisoleucine 1 month ago
Liked, shared, and subscribed! I learned something new today. Thank you.
1955RodHot 1 month ago
4:45 is that a monkey news?
TheFlowdiskord 1 month ago in playlist Athiest Argument
I couldn't remeber the name of your channel last night.... When i woke up this morning it was clear as day.... a good example of subliminal thoght :)
P.S I am know subscribed so this won't happen again
Aaronus423 1 month ago
i was watching this video in statistics class this morning. when i got home i was watching tv, and a show referenced a man wearing a suit of bells (as mentioned in the dream segment). what a coincidence.
chizarax 1 month ago
This video changed my fucking life.
AtedWasHere 2 months ago
This video doesn't prove there are no supernatural forces. It just points out the fact that the odds of it being supernatural forces are much less than you think.
dueycrim 2 months ago
@dueycrim there are no odds for supernatural forces as there is no way to quantify their existence in statistical terms. What we do know is that there is no evidence for supernatural forces and even though we can't prove there aren't supernatural forces, we assume there are no supernatural forces. Why? For the same reason you don't believe in my invisible dragon, Shrek or fairies. Just because there is no evidence against their existence doesn't mean we should even contemplate their existence.
MrCrowley45 1 month ago
good video but i have a problem with every thing that happens in the universe just being coincidence because given the vastness of the universe and given the laws of quantum physics people should just pop in to existence or people should pop out of existence with 100% probability. even though the odds are 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000000000 it should still happen.
thewriterjustin 2 months ago
@thewriterjustin The event you describe of things just popping into or out of existence would not happen simply ebcause what you describe cannot happen. This isn't a probability issue, especially as probability can only operate within reality. What you describe is supernatural in itself therefore irrelevent to any legitimate discussion. You can't even put a probability on that event occuring, where would you even get the umbers from?
chimaeraproductions 2 months ago
@chimaeraproductions in quantum physics there is a small probability of things or people just popping in to realty fully formed. if you read the books by miticho kaku a physicist he talks about this. If i remember right but look at it this way there is something called virtual particles which pop in and out of realty in random numbers and last for a very short time and since they pop up in random order the chance of them forming a fully formed person or vw bug or bed ect. are really good......
thewriterjustin 2 months ago
but remember if anything has even the smallest chance to happen it will with time according to the laws of probability nothing is impossible. even if the chance is 1 in 10^ infinate-1 it must happen given time. thats why i don't believe in chance has to do with everything.
thewriterjustin 2 months ago
@thewriterjustin "if anything has even the smallest chance to happen it will with time"
Not necessarily. Some things may have an insufficiently small window of possibility due to finite existence: it's no longer possible for me to shake hands with Carl Sagan because he is dead.
"nothing is impossible"
That claim requires beyond-human knowledge.
"even if the chance is 1 in 10^ infinate-1"
10^Infinity-1 is the same as infinity.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago
@thewriterjustin "good video"
Thanks.
"but i have a problem with every thing that happens in the universe just being coincidence"
Please note, this video isn't saying 'everything is coincidence'. It's saying that many things claimed to have a connection don't or may not have such an assumed connection.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago
@QualiaSoup
does that include Charles Ingram and co. might be innocent of the major fraud they have been accused? :D
glutamin111 1 month ago
@thewriterjustin That's not true because there are still laws of nature. There is no chance that a person will simply vanish, or appear. Those things violate natural laws.
There's a difference between things that are coincidence and are assigned meaning by people, and things that are completely impossible or close enough to impossible to be unlikely to ever happen.
pkemrin 1 month ago
@thewriterjusti what's the opposite of "coincidence" for you? and how do you define "coincidence"? what does "just pop into existence" mean for you? i think this video is more about asking whether the things that are assumed to be connected directly aren't connected that directly at all - and on the other hand: the things that are assumed to have nothing to do with each other are way more directly connected with each other than many people assume.
motionapplied 1 month ago
@thewriterjustin
...It can happen, should happen, and WILL happen, given *enough time,* but it will not happen in an area detectable by us (most likely) until every star in the universe has fizzled completely. It will take trillions and trillions of years until those types of events have a decent chance of happening.
chadachada123 3 weeks ago
@thewriterjustin lol, there are estimated 10^80 atoms in the observable universe, this is why people do not have 100% probability to pop in to existence if the odds are 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000000000. Besides, maybe they do, did you check everywhere? Andromeda galaxy, did you check there yet?
m4c13k86 17 hours ago
Comment removed
g06c1396 2 months ago
Did anyone else notice the group ot dice say hello when it was going through possibilities?
AdamCollinsBTFI 2 months ago
That was a brilliant video, Got me thinking. :)
SashikuChan 2 months ago
Wow, you my friend are a retard, Grow up and follow the white rabbit.
buffalohouston 2 months ago
I was going to say 24, and then you said 23! School teachers know that in most of their classes, even smaller ones, the chance of two kids having the same birthday is very good.
thereforeithought 2 months ago
How can 89 people dislike this video? It's all based on statistical facts lol. He's hardly even mentioned God, he's just explaining that coincidence is not necessarily a big deal. And he did it VERY well!
Leopardman33 2 months ago
This is a great video that I watched for the first time today, before watching Derren Brown's The Secret of Luck. In the show Brown suggests luck is something we create for ourselves by taking opportunities. Ultimately, a guy who considers himself to be 'unlucky' takes an opportunity and rolls a die after predicting the outcome will be 4 on the third roll. He is right. Admittedly, I was mind blown and I don't know what to make of it. Is it coincidence? Help, please.
sumibabyxx 2 months ago
@sumibabyxx
HOLY FUCKING SHIT!! I thought about watching some derren brown's videos before watching this video, and here you are talking about derren brown! NO KIDDING!
AtheistView 2 months ago
@AtheistView Coincidence?
@QualiaSoup says in this video that events (such as rolling a 6) are more likely when large numbers of observation are considered which I don't understand because surely the probability of rolling a 6 is still 1/6 after an infinite number of observations, given the die is an 'honest' die. Then he says there is no way of predicting when an event may happen so predicitng the outcome of a 4 on the third roll and being right is just pure coincidence?
sumibabyxx 2 months ago
@sumibabyxx if you were to roll a die an infinite number of times the probability of rolling a 6 is 100%
davidwebb117 2 months ago
Any idea why YT claims the author "does not allow playback on iPad"..? It seems a fantastic claim to me.
dojohansen123 2 months ago
You are wrong about the monkey, The theoretical monkey experiment typing anything coherent assumes we are dealing with infinity.
If they actually made an experiment of this, i don't know what to say. They are stupid even to try lol
tilemacro 2 months ago
@tilemacro I said nothing about monkeys typing 'anything coherent'. The specific scenario was a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare - a vast and highly exact sequence.
The theoretical experiment only uses the monkey as code for 'random generator', and the point is that monkey behaviour is far too constrained and patterned to generate the kind of randomness required.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago
@QualiaSoup If the monkey has a single mutation (which it will) in its typing pattern then in an infinite amount of time it'll still write all of literature and all future literature written on earth.
FreeGluon 2 months ago
@FreeGluon "f the monkey has a single mutation (which it will) in its typing pattern"
I'd like you to explain exactly what that is supposed to mean, and how it demonstrates that a monkey - one that exhibits exactly the kind of behaviour we see in living monkeys today - will therefore type in exact sequential order every letter, space and piece of punctuation that constitutes the entire works of Shakespeare. A single random element in a highly ordered pattern does not lead to random data.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago
@QualiaSoup Yes but if the event is random, then it will happen in an infinitely large cluster (ie the works of Shakespeare). Imagine a dice. It has say 10,000 sides. All sides except one have a letter 's' on it, the remaining side has a random character. Just as when you role a dice you may get two sixes together you may here get two of this character (with odds of (1/10,000)^n*1/30(where n is the amount of rolls and by metaphor the size of the segment of text)). Despite this tiny (cont.)
FreeGluon 2 months ago
@FreeGluon chance, given an infinite amount of time it will write any given finite string. If you believe the monkey cannot produce a random event then I shall just invoke quantum mechanics and state that quantum fluctuations will eventually cause the monkey's matter to transform into a young and enthusiastic William Shakespeare who will then retype it personally.
FreeGluon 2 months ago
@FreeGluon "if the event is random, then..."
Monkey behaviour is not random, and certainly not in the excessively sustained way required to reproduce Shakespeare's works.
"quantum fluctuations will eventually cause the monkey's matter to transform into Shakespeare"
Aside from the absurdity of stating that QFs could turn monkeys into specific historical figures, Shakespeare would no longer be a monkey at a typewriter, which utterly destroys your argument.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago
@QualiaSoup If there is any possibility of the monkey doing something randomly (which due to the chaos of the universe there is) then this sort of event will cluster together given an infinite amount of time. This "& certainly not in the excessively sustained way" & "absurdity" are frankly absurd concepts in the context of infinity. As t goes to ∞, probability of any event goes to 1. The Bard idea just illustrates that given ∞ time every arrangement of matter & every event will happen.
FreeGluon 2 months ago
@FreeGluon No, the Bard idea only shows you're not dealing with the original scenario, which concerns a *monkey*, not an 'infinitely morphing entity' typing forever. By changing the scenario, you're only attacking a straw man. (Even if the monkey morphed into something genetically identical with Shakespeare, that wouldn't make it Shakespeare, only a duplicate.)
The only relevant fact here is that monkeys can't produce truly random data, and merely extending the timeframe doesn't change that.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago
@QualiaSoup No, it is you attacking a straw man as you clearly don't read my comment and keep coming back to the Bard idea. If you are stating that the monkey is unaffected by the laws of physics then yes, I agree with you, however this "fact... monkeys can't produce truly random data" is a completely unverified although if you wish to add it to the original scenario then of course you are right. However brains operate under the laws of quantum mechanics where everything is based on probability,
FreeGluon 2 months ago
@FreeGluon Ergo 'random data' or at least what we'd define as random from our subjective human standpoint, can improbably take place.
FreeGluon 2 months ago
@FreeGluon I presented the original scenario (a monkey typing forever) which you distorted. *Yours* is the straw man. And I returned to the Bard idea because *you* mentioned it again, so don't accuse me of not reading your comments.
"If... then yes, I agree with you"
Good.
Any expert cryptographer will tell you that even human attempts to type random strings do not generate randomness. 'Complex-looking' does not equal random.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago
@FreeGluon "If you are stating that the monkey is unaffected by the laws of physics"
Since we're already talking about a monkey that lives forever, it was obviously never a monkey that would be subject to all the rules that apply to mortal monkeys. The point of the thought experiment is that a monkey is continuing to act like a monkey for eternity.
And besides, if normal physics applied, the typewriter would stop functioning and disintegrate in no time.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago
I promise you guys that this is true. I am the youngest of 5, my two oldest brothers share the same birthday and they are two years apart. My two older sisters share the same birthday but are 1 year apart. This is very odd, but because there is so many families it was going to happen eventually.
shinokiba 2 months ago
A monkey is a metaphore,not an actual MONKEY(Animal).
itsstillgr8 2 months ago
This video reminds me of something I read from a Terry Pratchett, Discworld book.
It was determinded that the probability of this happening was one in a million, but wizards had determinded that one in a million chances cropped up nine times out of ten.
Silentsam7532 3 months ago
@OooHesGood I hope you didn't really pay attention to the video. Because if you did, you are really stupid. You don't get the concept of it one bit, still you judge it as the stupidest thing.
And for your fantastic orange story, have you ever heard of gravity?
Gloomira 3 months ago
That first "fact" is utter bollocks! In my 55 years and of the THOUSANDS of folks I have known all over the world not one had my exact birthday.
Babyhowdy233 3 months ago
@Babyhowdy233 If the first scenario was saying 'a specific person' has a 1 in 23 chance of a match, that would indeed be 'utter bollocks'. But it wasn't. It was saying that the statistical chance of '2 people' in a group sharing a birthday - that is *any* match - is roughly 1 in 23. So it's irrelevant that you don't know anyone who shares your particular birthday. There are countless matches among people I've known. If you know thousands of folks, that must be true for you also - by definition.
QualiaSoup 3 months ago
@Babyhowdy233 It's called the "Birthday Paradox".. look it up.
DDazzle1 2 months ago in playlist QualiaSoup
@DDazzle1
I studied it years ago in college and I STILL think it's utter bollocks! :/
Babyhowdy233 2 months ago
@Babyhowdy233 Here's a site explaining the birthday paradox and it includes a random number generator so you can run your own tests. betterexplained[DOT]com/articles/understanding-the-birthday-paradox/
DDazzle1 2 months ago
@DDazzle1 "Here's a site explaining the birthday paradox and it includes a random number generator so you can run your own tests. "
Excellent site. I've put this in the video description. Thanks, DD.
QualiaSoup 2 months ago
@QualiaSoup no prob, mate.
DDazzle1 2 months ago
This is the stupidest video ever... I wouldnt say there is a God because someone shares the first name as I.. I wouldnt be shocked if I shared a Bday with a room full of 23 people. lol... No one is shocked when someone shares a favorite movie... Explain the odds of this jerk, my sister was walking down the st. on vacation, about to grab an orange from a tree, my dad said Dont touch it, if God wanted you to have it he would give it to you and right then the orange fell and HIT her on the head! =)
OooHesGood 3 months ago
watch this if u no longer want to feel unique lol
hitman1502 3 months ago
If I predict a toffee tree will grow in my garden and find there to be one the following day- it doesn't matter how many outlandish predictions I made that did not come to pass.
gnamp 4 months ago
@gnamp Bullshit. I could spend a day saying a whole bunch of things and have one of them come true the next day. That doesn't mean I predicted it would happen. I stated many things that day. One of them was bound to happen not because I said it would happen, but because it matched what I said would happen.
Moshikashitenai 3 months ago
@Moshikashitenai That Could Be Synchronicity Though
KarllunZ 3 months ago
@Moshikashitenai If you made a 'million' statements- all of which were completely impossible, and one, just one of them were to come truw- that would make you very, very special.
gnamp 3 months ago
@gnamp *true
gnamp 3 months ago
@gnamp If u Made A Million Statements All Of Which That Were Possible, And One Just One Was Not To Become True.... U My Friend Have Super Natural Powers
HDLuxyHD 3 months ago
@HDLuxyHD nope- that doesn't work, does it? Try "If you made a million statements, each word of which 'must' begin with a capital letter- you my friend, are a cretin".
gnamp 2 months ago
@gnamp I can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid
Moshikashitenai 3 months ago
@Moshikashitenai that doesn't surprise me in the least. Ofcourse you can't tell, you've been unable to follow a logical argument from the very start. Come on dumb-ass THINK! It makes perfect sense.
gnamp 2 months ago
You guys have it all figured out, don't you? Sorry but I have to say this: Everything he says in this video is obvious, don't think you are that more smart than the ones that think differently about this subjects because you are not. I'm not saying you are dumb, you are just ignorant about many things. Your equations are too simplified.
biblia2016 4 months ago
@biblia2016 Occam's razor, irony, and idiocy. That is both your comment and the appropriate response in a nutshell
ridonculous34 4 months ago
Comment removed
Nahkranoth8 4 months ago
sorry.just one correction. the 'collapse into now' signs are still up but there's less of them than a few days ago, on other artists videos.
StrummingSparrow 4 months ago
Here's a recent pretty astonishing one. A few days ago, for the first time in ages, I suddenly decided to listen to song after song from REM. All the 'Collapse into Now' links were still up on youtube. The next night, at midnight, I heard on the radio that they split up. i agree with everything you say but although the law of large numbers says that coincidences as we call them should happen, it's difficult to predict exactly what will happen.that's why it's fascinating to us. I am a factor too.
StrummingSparrow 4 months ago
@StrummingSparrow I guess the low of attraction was involved into your statement :D
mjoraid 4 months ago
@mjoraid yes. the law of attraction.at the risk of seeming a negative strereotype of new age, there is that side of things in reality. i don't think it's a scientific law, but it does tie in with psychology. Richard Dawkins at times says that what you feel has no necessary connection with the truth. actually, it might do. what you gravitate towards as a person is part of what makes the bigger picture.
StrummingSparrow 4 months ago
and less belief in the supernatural, too
malleusss555 4 months ago
great video... what this world needs is more thought
malleusss555 4 months ago
That was semi depressing&obvious.
rochemotive 4 months ago
6:56, in the upper right corner, "The things you've learned...Insects have 8 le"...legs? I don't think that's right.
narutofire18 4 months ago
@narutofire18 I originally had "Arachnids have 8 legs" and meant to change the whole thing but missed the number change (to 6) and realised the oversight just after uploading.
Still, as it gets cut off after the 'le', I can now claim it was an entirely different sentence: eg. "Insects have 8 left stigmata on their abdomen"(!)
But well-spotted!
QualiaSoup 4 months ago
What about the fact that the moon is the exact size and distance from the sun to fit perfectly over it during an eclipse? Expliquez-moi cela, Mr. Dawkins
HelloWerldLawl 4 months ago
@HelloWerldLawl not all eclipses are "perfect" ;)
Proghead88 4 months ago
@HelloWerldLawl Our Earth is very unique. But we recognize this uniqueness only because we live here. A solar eclipse is a man made observation of a specific event experienced on our planet. Outside the mind of a human being, outside of conciousness a solar eclipse is insignificant. The nature of a human mind puts value and interest on the rarity of something, and because a solar eclipse is a rare celestial event our planet experiences we put interest into it's uniqueness.
Nahkranoth8 4 months ago
See the Aimed At America 1 video and decide when all these parallels will stop being coincidences.
vincent15641 4 months ago
i feel stoned
MrMethadrine 4 months ago
@9493760 "SO IN OTHER WORDS , COINCIDENCE OCCURS MORE OFTEN BECAUSE MAN SHARES A COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS ?"
No.
"P.S. YOU SOUND LIKE THERAMIN TREES"
You sound...LOUD.
QualiaSoup 4 months ago
SO IN OTHER WORDS , COINCIDENCE OCCURS MORE OFTEN BECAUSE MAN SHARES A COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS ?
GIANFRANCO FRONZI / SEPTEMBER / 6 /2011
P.S. YOU SOUND LIKE THERAMIN TREES
9493760 4 months ago
Someone knows how to control the mind.
Naughty naughty.
TCupUK 4 months ago
it's always some ass hole with a proper accent that fucks up all the magic.
gfunkwillyfry 4 months ago
@gfunkwillyfry it's always some asshole with magic that fucks up reality.
Proghead88 4 months ago
If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.
SeekTruthN0w 4 months ago
im wearing headphones and the thunder at the beginning scared the shit out of me.
evinado1 5 months ago
one of the best videos on youtube.
subscribed.
Anduy 5 months ago
(cont.)... While we should approach everything with a critical eye, we should also be open to the POSSIBILITY of clairvoyance even if it doesn't fit into Science's grand scheme of things.
Kobokon 5 months ago
(continued)... the existence of clairvoyance hasn't been scientifically proven, that it's a load of bullshit. I'm saying people ought to be open to the possibility of clairvoyance, even if it doesn't yet fit into science's grand scheme of things.
Kobokon 5 months ago
@Kobokon For one to hypothesize that clairvoyance is real, one would have to develop a theory to explain it. Are there any theories that exclude the use of mysticism?
TacticusPrime 5 months ago
@TacticusPrime But isn't it the other way around? Don't you need a hypothesis first, before you develop it into a theory? We can still hypothesize that clairvoyance is real without having a full-proof theory on the matter. If we limit our understanding of the universe to only those theories that science presents us (some of which, btw, have been proven wrong in the past), how are we to think for ourselves? Again, I return to my original point...
Kobokon 5 months ago
@Kobokon A hypothesis would be something like, "A human brain can be sensitive to the electromagnetic wave generation of other brains, and thus know what they know. We should do studies and test the sensitivity of mammal brains to the wave patterns of other mammal brains."
You can't say, "I bet clairvoyance is real. I'm going to behave like it is until someone proves it isn't."
There are things that are possible but unproven. The existence of intelligent aliens for one. Psychics? No.
TacticusPrime 5 months ago
@TacticusPrime I agree: It would be foolish to believe in something just because it hasn't been proven wrong. But I'm not talking about belief. Belief is irrelevant. Right now, we're talking fact. You cannot state as fact that there is no such thing as psychics. That's as pretentious as it is ignorant.
Kobokon 5 months ago
@Kobokon Then we can't say that there is no such thing as bigfoot or fortune telling or homeopathy either. Scientists HAVE ALREADY taken a serious look at all these phenomena. You think scientists wouldn't love to remembered as the guy who up ended the current understanding of a topic? But until the larger scientific community recognizes the shift, it's our responsibility as laymen to reject fringe "science." Remember, people are liers.
TacticusPrime 5 months ago
I can't state as a fact that there are no psychics, but, even if they lived in the past, live now, or will live in the future, what would change?
marasu66 5 months ago
But most of what you said was very enlightening. Thanks for posting.
Kobokon 5 months ago
"No one has ever demonstrated clairvoyant abilities under properly controlled conditions" is a bold statement. Just because such a demonstration hasn't been made public, doesn't mean there has never been one. I know if I were clairvoyant, I would keep it on the DL (I wouldn't want the government kidnapping me and doing tests on my brain). To assert, as fact, that there has never been a legit instance of clairvoyance is close minded.
Kobokon 5 months ago
@Kobokon Or it's the natural and default response to a stupid claim. If someone claims to have eaten a sandwich, then it would be reasonable to take them at their word. If they claim to have eaten a dragon, then the reasonable response would be to consider them full of shit.
Sometimes seemingly ridiculous ideas are true. For instance, the sun does not orbit us as it seems to, but the other way around. But we believe this because of evidence. Not because it sounds cool.
TacticusPrime 5 months ago
@TacticusPrime I understand that the idea of eating a dragon is outlandish and silly, but how can you compare that to the possibility of a sixth sense? There are many studies out there indicating at least a slight tendency for psychic abilities in humans (as well as many other animals). This "sixth sense" seems very absurd to most people because modern western science isn't yet capable of accounting for it. So most believers in western science don't think it has any credibility.
Kobokon 5 months ago
@Kobokon What do you mean 6th? Humans have way more than 5 senses. Like Proprioception, the sense that tells us where the parts of our body are without looking at them. We have 9 senses at the outside. Do you know anything about science?
Where are the studies that suggest humans have telepathic abilities? Who conducted them and how? Who funded them? Do you really think that modern capitalism wouldn't market the shit out it?
TacticusPrime 5 months ago
@TacticusPrime "We have 9 senses at the outside" you say... Aside from proprioception and the basic five, what are the other two? (just curious) The senses I'm talking about are the senses we use to perceive our external world.
And do I know anything about science? Do YOU know anything about etiquette? Are you trying to add to the discussion or make blunt jabs at me?
Anyways, you're missing my original point. All I'm saying is that it's pretentious of western science to assert that since....
Kobokon 5 months ago
@Kobokon Well there's our sense of pain, which is not an overloading of touch sensors but a distinct phenomena. Our ability to sense temperature... our sense of equilibrium... and a multitude of inner senses, like our vomit reflexes, that are difficult to specifically classify.
TacticusPrime 5 months ago
The religious people who call everything "Miracle" should watch this
djay00009 5 months ago
Monkeys:
I think that the literal interpretation of that statement sort of takes away credence to the intention of the person whome first said it.
The obvious statement they were trying to make was in an infinite amount of time, the highly improbable, even the impossible, becomes very probable to the point where assuming it wouldn't is absurd. If there is an imaginable way for a chimp to type shakespeare, in a true infinity will happen because all that is possible will happen.
ReverendNillerz 5 months ago
God damn it, why can't I have a British accent?
SaintKiggles 5 months ago
I think given eternity, the low amount of randomness would be irrelevant, so i think they would still write Shakespeare, no?
Eternity is... forever. lol
darris321 5 months ago
"Ohhhh you're no fun anymore!" (Monty Python)
gshefer11 5 months ago
I love the other things that happened in the dream x)
omgshift111 5 months ago
Fascinating
teebee1984 5 months ago
and lol at using the birthday paradox. entropy probability is not the same probability you are using. If a truck with billions of toothpicks tips over and all those toothpicks spill on the highway in an exact replica model of new york city down to street level, that is going to take countless times for that to happen. there are many more disordered states than ordered ones. this isnt birthdays. there are only 365 birthdays, there are countless numbers of disordered states.
notreason 6 months ago
"The Universe is very big and very old, and rare things happen all the time " - Lawrence Krause, A Universe from Nothing.
johnycannuk 6 months ago
This guy sounds like Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw on dope.
mynamesforest 6 months ago
Even if all of it, life , the universe, everything turns out to be a coincidence, that doesn't mean it is any less beautiful or amazing.
FattyMcFox 6 months ago
I'd like to see you question Roger Penrose's math.
search penrose fine tuning in youtube
notreason 6 months ago
@notreason And this is relevant because....?
Penose may have impeccable math...that simply did not take into account the Birthday Paradox (which, I might add, is used as an attack against even the strongest crypto if it isn't implemented right).
Also, Penrose made his calculation how long ago? Physics has advanced a great deal in the past decades.
johnycannuk 6 months ago
@johnycannuk
It is from like 3 years ago, and nothing has changed in that time. Would you care to specifically take on his math instead of just saying he is wrong with generalities.
notreason 6 months ago
As far as the birthday thing, every birthday doesn't have equal odds. A person chosen at random is far more likely to have a September birthday than any other month due to the large amount of sex people have over the holidays. After that, there are a few times of year that are more likely than most. So, you really only need three or four random people to have the odds be in favour of them sharing a birthday.
TheCeejReturns 6 months ago
@TheCeejReturns Whose holidays? Only 300 million people live in the U.S. 1.5 billion live in China. 1.1 billion live in India. They don't have the same holidays as us.
logsdonj 6 months ago
@logsdonj
Who are the "us" you're referring to? I don't have ANY holidays, but that doesn't change the fact that the month with, by far, the highest birthrate is September.
TheCeejReturns 6 months ago
Litnight, I think you're agreeing with me, although your tone sounds a little condescending.
bohemianwomanful 6 months ago
3 camels in a tiny car :D
Zandonus 6 months ago
fool
gogolplex74 6 months ago
@gogolplex74 assburger
maxergud 6 months ago
boo
swantonist 6 months ago
Why can't you just talk English?!!!
DarkVortex97 6 months ago
@DarkVortex97 He is speaking in English.
mynameisjonas45 6 months ago
My 1970's era, heavily-Southern-Baptist school district made a religiously-based decision *not* to include instruction about probability and statistics in our basic mathematics curriculum specifically because they believed it would "lead to gambling." As it turns out, it's likely there was an even darker, less paternalistic reason for their keeping us in ignorance, eh?
accebertsmith 6 months ago
@accebertsmith Bahahah. If you include instruction about probability and statistics, you're more likely NOT to gamble because you'll realize that the odds are against you.
aSongScout 6 months ago
@aSongScout It doesn't REALLY matter if the odds are against you in anything. The anthropic principal, you see.
BigLundi 6 months ago
@aSongScout I know, right? :)
accebertsmith 6 months ago
"Murder Trees" would be a great name for a band...
theantithesis1 6 months ago
@theantithesis1 Dibs.
Smithpolly 6 months ago
How would you explain telepathic, detailed experiences? Or psychics who are called by police to help resolve cases? I agree that meeting someone with the same birthday has a high likelihood and other similar 'statistics.' However, there are experiences that cannot be explained mathematically or scientifically for now.
bohemianwomanful 6 months ago
@bohemianwomanful no successful "telepathic detailed experience" has ever been recorded scientifically under controlled circumstances and published in a journal for all to see and scrutinize. Because this hasn't happened "telepathic, detailed experiences" effectively don't exist and there is no need to explain them.
And further more just because an experience cannot be explained (the why) doesn't mean that an experience cannot be documented (the what).
litnight 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@litnight I think you're ageeing with me, although your tone sounds a little condescending ????
bohemianwomanful 6 months ago
@bohemianwomanful And as far as the police who call on psychics...just because a person of authority makes a decision that doesn't inherently mean that they are right. Having authority and having knowledge are two different things. And one can have either without the other.
Sylvia Brown is an example of how psychic powers measure up when psychics make specific predictions about cases and later objective evidence is obtained.
litnight 6 months ago
@litnight, I honestly don't understand what point you are making, if you are agreeing or disagreeing!!!!
bohemianwomanful 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a T-shirt that says:
god = square root of -1
Funny how I get one of two reactions:
1. "I like your shirt!"
2. "What does that mean?"
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago
THANK YOU.
MajCinematic 6 months ago
I've watched a few of your videos mate, and I've got to say... some of your friends are as daft as bats!
justatesomepizza 6 months ago
Wnder if the peace image at the end was photoshopped? No one will ever know, but the person who "created" it.
sownzgr8 6 months ago
idiot
logicalcreationist 6 months ago
I'm so going to roll 20 6 sided dice now!
Zullala 6 months ago
The evolutionary benefit of our brain constantly looking for patterns and changes in patterns and predicting patterns.
Did it occur to anyone that our brain still does that, only in a world where there are less life threatening patterns to be found?
Seriously, we don't need to keep an eye on the pattern of the surface of the grassland to look out for tigers. Everything is easy.
I think it drives our brains BONKERS. They have this ability, like an alarm clock and all they want is use it. invane!
HaploidCell 6 months ago
@HaploidCell You still need this pattern searching and matching if crossing the street for example, the city is still a jungle for most. Think what would happen if we didn't have this or even had a reduced pattern matching ability. You would be missing out on the stock market, most of the scientific fields, public health issues, be counterproductive...
The problem is not our brain being overactive, the problem is mis- and under-education in the fields of mathematics, statistics and probability
GuruEvi 6 months ago
@GuruEvi I agree with your last sentence. I didn't say that we didn't HAVE the pattern searching any more, or that we should reduce it.
I'm just observing that looking for miniscule patterns in day to day life is no longer a life-saving ability. At least not in big cities.
The bus coming down the street is life threatening, sure. But not so intricate that only people with good eyesight can detect it.
Everything is easy.
And our brain searches for patterns, driven by evolution to find some.
HaploidCell 6 months ago
@HaploidCell
The issue is an evolutive one. Evolution does it's thing, really there's nothing we can conciusly do about it--- well that unless you are a women and care so much about this things that would not marry-have unprotected sex with any man that carries that type of behaviour. ;)
DrErkencho 6 months ago
this just asks for a 'cool story bro' XD
AppleOfInternalHappy 6 months ago
Think about this simple demonstration next time you pray for something and it actually happens. Better yet, write down every single time you pray for something specific to happen at a certain time on a certain day. The results are due to random chance, not the "power" of prayer. Scientifically conducted studies have consistently shown this to be true. For just one of hundreds of examples of large, reliable, impartial studies on the subject, Google
Prayer doesn't help heart patients, study says
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
7:09 OH MY GOD MY NAME IS ON THERE QUALIASOUP IS A WIZARD
TheRealBobV3 7 months ago
@TheRealBobV3 Yes, but it's not just your name on there. There are a few dozen names on there. There's over 284,000 people that have seen this. Someone is BOUND to share there name with something in this video. As QualiaSoup explained, coincidences are not mathematically improbable. They are to be expected.
oldblubblub 7 months ago
@oldblubblub THATS THE JOKE
TheRealBobV3 7 months ago
LMAO 'Tom Dick Harry'
Tom's dck is harry
JahadProduction 7 months ago
@Trucidofy how much u win?? and you mean the same set of numbers twice??
tonyfalca 7 months ago
There are no "co-incidences".
bheadh 7 months ago
@bheadh
There are "co-incidences".
Qternocq 7 months ago
the other day i randomly mashed the key board, and it typed "Girl I've been thinking alot" perfectly with capital letters and all, and i had been thinking about a girl haha, coincidences do happen
wearestarstuffsagan 7 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan i honestly believe thats more than coincidence lol
tonyfalca 7 months ago