FLUKEY OR SPOOKY? Incredible real-life coincidences or are they?

[DHFabian]

Nah, didn't rise from the dead. I just spend enough time wandering through the Internet crypts
(the fun of obscure researches). The point is, you can find an "eerie" chain of coincidence in nearly anything, if you look long enough. There's nothing mystical or spooky about it. It just happens.

 

[DaveC426913]

The point is, you can find an "eerie" chain of coincidence in nearly anything, if you look long enough. There's nothing mystical or spooky about it. It just happens.

I agree.

I often have to explain that "coincindences happen. And they don't need to be explained; they're coincidences - that's the definition."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is the problem that I see: What are the odds?

Far more often than not, we have no idea what the odds for any particular event might be, so we can only assume that all "coincidences" can be explained as statistical flukes. But we can't state that as a fact. We have no way to test the claim. We have no model by which to make predictions and then test the frequency of such events. If coincidences occur more often than they should, we wouldn't have any way to know.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree.

I often have to explain that "coincindences happen. And they don't need to be explained; they're coincidences - that's the definition."

Remember this next time you see something in a painting that looks like a brain.

 

[baywax]

I agree.

I often have to explain that "coincindences happen. And they don't need to be explained; they're coincidences - that's the definition."

Actually the definition of coincidence would be two incidences taking place at the same time... which happens all the time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no need for language trivia or discussion of the trivial case. We are talking about events that are perceived to be statistically unlikely. The trouble is that we have to define what statistical relationship exists. And then determine how often one would expect a 1:100, or 1:1,000,000 event, or whatever the odds are, to occur.

 

[Thetom]

The TV programme Million2One airs a lot of real-life incidents like some of the above, and in the end calculates the probability of that happening.

There's this old man, somewhere in England. His daughter takes care of him, but for a few hours on a particular day, she goes back to her house, which was just down the street (or somewhere pretty close by). During those fateful hours, the old man has a heart attack. He tries to call his daughter, but by mistake dials the wrong number. But guess what, he dials to a public phone in a quiet corridor in a city hospital. And who was walking by when the phone rang? His granddaughter, who happens to be working as a nurse there! He was eventually brought to the hospital and was saved.

Wow! That is... uncanny :) What are the odds of that? He was a very fluky guy (or very spooky, depending on your views).

There can't be millions of people on their death-beds all trying to call help and getting the wrong number. Enough so that it becomes probable that one would get the right wrong number at some point. Can there?

 

[DaveC426913]

Remember this next time you see something in a painting that looks like a brain.

OK, but ten things coming together at the same time and place doesn't really fit coincidence.

 

[GeorginaS]

There is no need for language trivia or discussion of the trivial case. We are talking about events that are perceived to be statistically unlikely. The trouble is that we have to define what statistical relationship exists. And then determine how often one would expect a 1:100, or 1:1,000,000 event, or whatever the odds are, to occur.

I think that the key word in this is "perceived". Perceived as statistically unlikely. I think that's beginning with the faulty premise that there is a statistical unlikelihood to begin with.

The name of this thread is "incredible real-life coincidences" when, really, I don't think they stretch credulity, but they are awfully darned interesting.

How many individual events happen to every person each and every day? We only pay attention to the ones that have any significance or meaning to us personally because we'd otherwise be overwhelmed with information. Add to that that our brains are designed to perceive patterns and then we also have a tendency to group together supporting ideas that include evidence of that pattern.

A simple one is how many people do we walk past every day? We don't take note of the majority of them nor does it seem remarkable to us that there are other people in public places where we are. But run into someone at Safeway who you haven't seen since high school 30 years ago, and you both attended a high school on the opposite end of the country, and now you have a "what are the chances?" event. It's not a statistical question. You've already been in that store day in and out with hundreds and hundreds of people. Why is running into someone you know less likely than running into all kinds of people you don't know? You don't pay attention to one grouping, but you pay attention to the other grouping.

And I think if we peer too closely at coincidences -- which are, I think, really just regular events we pay attention to rather than not -- we begin wandering into synchronicity and meaning and whatnot. (One especially has to be careful of the "whatnot". It sneaks up on you.)

 

[QuanticEnigma]

You've already been in that store day in and out with hundreds and hundreds of people. Why is running into someone you know less likely than running into all kinds of people you don't know? You don't pay attention to one grouping, but you pay attention to the other grouping.

The probability of running into someone you know is much higher than running into somebody you haven't seen for 30 years and on the other side of the country, I think it's the latter that's more significant in that situation. This is a pretty trivial point, but the number of people you don't know far outnumbers the number of which you do know, so it would make sense you would pay attention to that minority when you are out. That being said, I don't think you would walk into a store, expecting to see someone from 30 years ago, and from the other side of the country.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is no need for language trivia or discussion of the trivial case. We are talking about events that are perceived to be statistically unlikely. The trouble is that we have to define what statistical relationship exists. And then determine how often one would expect a 1:100, or 1:1,000,000 event, or whatever the odds are, to occur.

I brought this up before a few years back, but I guess it bears repeating. Feynman deftly pointed out the irrelevancy of statistical probability to any given event:

"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"

Any given specific event is statistically extremely improbable. The more specifically you define the event the more true that becomes (that particular license plate on that particular night!). As Georgina pointed out, we only notice the incredible improbability when the specific event has personal significance. The odds of running into a person you haven't seen in 30 years at the store one day are actually about the same as the odds of running into a specific individual you've never encountered before, if only you appreciate how specific that specific individual actually is, and how specific that time and place. Each stranger, each time, each place, is a very specific. Once you pay attention to that, and focus on how specific they are, the odds of you encountering them become less and less probable. We beat unbelievable odds moment by moment, all day long.

As Georgina emphasized, the key word is "perceived". We are pattern-seeking creatures, with a distinct leaning toward giving everything a kind of "pattern test". Very small whiffs of familiarity put us on alert and we test them to see if they fit a pattern we know. By this mechanism, a circle, two dots and an arc are "recognized" as a smiling face: , when in fact it bears no authentic resemblance to any face in nature. We even accept it rotated 90 degrees, without the circle :) It's a stripped down abstraction that never-the-less works due to our propensity for checking for patterns at many different levels of perception. Certain kinds of specificity take on extraordinary importance. Other kinds, though equally specific, are ignored, discounted.

Calulating the probability of an event ends up being immaterial in determining if it was a coincidence or not. If you define the event according to certain parameters it become statistically impossible that it should ever occur. Define it according to other parameters, and it becomes inevitable that it should occur.

 

[QuanticEnigma]

As Georgina pointed out, we only notice the incredible improbability when the specific event has personal significance. The odds of running into a person you haven't seen in 30 years at the store one day are actually about the same as the odds of running into a specific individual you've never encountered before, if only you appreciate how specific that specific individual actually is, and how specific that time and place. Each stranger, each time, each place, is a very specific. Once you pay attention to that, and focus on how specific they are, the odds of you encountering them become less and less probable. We beat unbelievable odds moment by moment, all day long.

Thanks for clarifying that, I think I was referring to all strangers, not a particular individual. But maybe a person isn't considered "particular" until you actually acknowledge them. For example, the probably of seeing "a person" in the street is very high, but if you find out his name and then hope to see him again, that probability drastically reduces. So, really, its the probability of finding him again that's low, not the probability of finding him in the first place. Since you've already seen the friend from 30 years ago, the chance of finding them again is very low, whereas the chance of finding a stranger for the first time is very high.

 

[turbo]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1152374&postcount=8

Old post, but still a "wow" moment.

 

[GeorginaS]

Any given specific event is statistically extremely improbable.

Thank you for all of that, Zooby. You fleshed those thoughts out far more coherently than I did.

 

[DaveC426913]

"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"

The one I've always used (because I invented it) is:

"More babies are born during a full moon than any other time. Just ask any nurse; they'll corroborate it."

To which my response is: when is the last time a nurse, while attending a birth, looked out the window and remarked "Wow, another baby born during a waning gibbous Moon!"?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks for clarifying that, I think I was referring to all strangers, not a particular individual. But maybe a person isn't considered "particular" until you actually acknowledge them. For example, the probably of seeing "a person" in the street is very high, but if you find out his name and then hope to see him again, that probability drastically reduces. So, really, its the probability of finding him again that's low, not the probability of finding him in the first place. Since you've already seen the friend from 30 years ago, the chance of finding them again is very low, whereas the chance of finding a stranger for the first time is very high.

You're missing Feyman's point. A "friend from 30 years ago" is much more specific than a "stranger", just like the license plate ARW 357 is vastly more specific than just "a license plate." To appreciate how unlikely encountering the stranger is, even for the very first time, you have to define them at least as specifically as the friend from 30 years ago. The stranger has to become something like: A 179 lb. blonde man wearing a leather jacket over a purple t-shirt.

You won't notice how specific that man is under normal circumstances because the specificity of his weighing 179 lbs, being blonde, and wearing a leather jacket over a purple t-shirt all at once means nothing to you. Regardless, it's pretty specific and the odds of you encountering a man that specifically defined are extremely low. Keep your eyes open for the license plate ARW 357, for instance. You'll probably never see it. Yet, on that particular night before his lecture, that's the very license plate Feynman saw. Amazing! What are the odds?

The point is that improbable odds can't be used to support the argument a thing was not coincidental. We only get exited at how specific an event is when the particular specificity happens to mean something to us. In fact, all events are specific, hence: improbable, but we normally don't notice that or care. The odds of finding a particular specificity that happens to be important to us now and then are actually high because we are pattern-seeking creatures, with prodigious memories, and we enthusiastically make connections.

That doesn't mean everything is a coincidence. It just means we can't cite improbable odds in support of non-coincidence. Proving a thing was not a coincidence, if you wanted to try, would have to be done by some other investigative means or logic.

 

[alt]

The probability of running into someone you know is much higher than running into somebody you haven't seen for 30 years and on the other side of the country, I think it's the latter that's more significant in that situation. This is a pretty trivial point, but the number of people you don't know far outnumbers the number of which you do know, so it would make sense you would pay attention to that minority when you are out. That being said, I don't think you would walk into a store, expecting to see someone from 30 years ago, and from the other side of the country.

Hi all;

I just read this entire thread. Interesting. I would respectfully call most of the incidents mentioned thus far, as coincidence or confirmation bias.

Re the above post;

- Running into someone you hadn't seen for 30 years ? Unremarkable.

- Running into someone you hadn't seen for 30 years, but whom you were clearly thinking about (for the first time in years) 30 seconds ago, or 30 minutes ago ? Very remarkable.

And as Ivan says, what are the odds .. and many deeper questions than that too.

 

[Borg]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1152374&postcount=8

Old post, but still a "wow" moment.

A neighbor of mine had a ferret that I can't remember the name of - I'll call him Bob. Anyway, Bob got away and my neighbor put up flyers around the neighborhood. Several days later he got a call from a local tavern saying that they had his ferret. The name of the place was Bob's Tavern.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thank you for all of that, Zooby. You fleshed those thoughts out far more coherently than I did.

Thanks!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Calulating the probability of an event ends up being immaterial in determining if it was a coincidence or not.

That is only true if we have no way to determine how often the event [probability] should occur, and to then test for the frequency of that occurence. With a large enough sample, a high confidence in the predictions can be achieved.

If I am traveling across the country and never visit the same place twice, and I keep seeing the same license plate [the same car], I could eventually rule this out as chance with high confidence.

No doubt, the perceived likelihood is often not the same as the statistical likelihood. That is why I chose the word "perceived", and then made the distinction that we need to determine the statistical relationship. However, this does not imply that all "flukey" events are merely perceived to be unlikely. Some truly are unlikely. But, we also expect strange events from time to time because we experience so many events in our lives. And therein lies the problem: In most cases, we have no means of formulating a practical test. However, depending on the case at hand, this can also limit our ability to make definitive statements either way. In some if not most cases, we can't know if events like this occur more often than they should. We can only state what we expect based on known scientific principles.

 

[zoobyshoe]

With a large enough sample, a high confidence in the predictions can be achieved.

I agree with this completely. In the case of these spooky/flukey stories, though, people usually try to guestimate odds from single occurrences.

 

[DaveC426913]

- Running into someone you hadn't seen for 30 years ? Unremarkable.

- Running into someone you hadn't seen for 30 years, but whom you were clearly thinking about (for the first time in years) 30 seconds ago, or 30 minutes ago ? Very remarkable.

No. That is a coincidence.

And as Ivan says, what are the odds ..

They are highly unlikely.

But in a complex world, highly unlikely events are inevitable*.


*See what I did there?

 

[alt]

No. That is a coincidence.

They are highly unlikely.

But in a complex world, highly unlikely events are inevitable*.


*See what I did there?

Yes, of course - coincidence.

The event I mentioned could be, probably is, coincidence.

The thing that follows from that, is what are the odds - a very difficult, if not impossible thing to calculate ?

And what if such events happen much more frequently than what one might expect ?

I know that your resposne would be as above, ie, 'in a complex world, highly unlikely events are inevitable' ..

But if such highly unlikely events occur with a high frequency, it does leave one wondering.

 

[GeorginaS]

Yes, of course - coincidence.

Yes, because that's what those events are called.

And what if such events happen much more frequently than what one might expect ?

Define a reasonable frequency expectation is for such events. Once a month? Twice? Once a year? What are the parametres for those expectations?

But if such highly unlikely events occur with a high frequency, it does leave one wondering.

If you read what's already been written, what makes you say that that event is highly unlikely? Coincidences happen all the time and with great frequency. I'd surmise, then, that they're very likely.

And, then, further, I'd be interested to know what exactly you think it "leave one wondering". What do these normal, every day events leave you wondering?

Also, consider for a moment why it leaves you wondering whatever it leaves you to wonder. To me (and not putting words in your mouth just describing my experience; I'd like to hear yours) when someone says to me, "It makes you wonder" they're telling me that they see some significance in whatever the event or events are. When, really, it's our lizard brains perceiving groupings and patterns, which is a normal function. *There's a physicist and commentator named Robert Park who uses the term "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" to describe the perception of groupings as significant and/or meaningful, and everything that falls outside of support for that pattern simply not being taken into account. Statisticians describe it "like firing all your bullets into the side of a barn and then walking over to the bullet-riddled wall and drawing a bull's eye where it looks best". *

[*Reference: Caveman Logic by Hank Davis Prometheus Books Copyright 2009 pg 97]

 

[alt]

Yes, because that's what those events are called.



Define a reasonable frequency expectation is for such events. Once a month? Twice? Once a year? What are the parametres for those expectations?



If you read what's already been written, what makes you say that that event is highly unlikely? Coincidences happen all the time and with great frequency. I'd surmise, then, that they're very likely.

And, then, further, I'd be interested to know what exactly you think it "leave one wondering". What do these normal, every day events leave you wondering?

Also, consider for a moment why it leaves you wondering whatever it leaves you to wonder. To me (and not putting words in your mouth just describing my experience; I'd like to hear yours) when someone says to me, "It makes you wonder" they're telling me that they see some significance in whatever the event or events are. When, really, it's our lizard brains perceiving groupings and patterns, which is a normal function. *There's a physicist and commentator named Robert Park who uses the term "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" to describe the perception of groupings as significant and/or meaningful, and everything that falls outside of support for that pattern simply not being taken into account. Statisticians describe it "like firing all your bullets into the side of a barn and then walking over to the bullet-riddled wall and drawing a bull's eye where it looks best". *

[*Reference: Caveman Logic by Hank Davis Prometheus Books Copyright 2009 pg 97]

Hi Georgia - thanks for the reply.

Lets assume that different incidents occur at a frequency of, say, once a week, and that such incidents probability is calculated at, say, 1M to one (as to how such probability might be calculated, I have no idea, but we have to have something to work with).

That would then leave me wondering whether there was a more subtle means of perception that enabled one on those occassions, to, ummm .. involuntarily, glimpse a much broader 'present moment' than one would normally.

PS - I can't seem to get the multi quote function to work on this forum. I click on it but nothing happens. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong ? Thanks.

 

[GeorginaS]

Hi Georgia - thanks for the reply.

Lets assume that different incidents occur at a frequency of, say, once a week, and that such incidents probability is calculated at, say, 1M to one (as to how such probability might be calculated, I have no idea, but we have to have something to work with).

That would then leave me wondering whether there was a more subtle means of perception that enabled one on those occassions, to, ummm .. involuntarily, glimpse a much broader 'present moment' than one would normally.

PS - I can't seem to get the multi quote function to work on this forum. I click on it but nothing happens. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong ? Thanks.

Last thing first, here's a thread that gives really good instructions about how the multi-quote function works

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=388346"

Can you flesh out your idea about involuntarily, glimpse a much broader 'present moment' than one would normally. I'm not quite getting what you mean.

And I think I need to ask you again -- given the normalcy and pedestrian nature of coincidences -- what would you consider an "unusual rate" of their occurrences?

 

[alt]

Last thing first, here's a thread that gives really good instructions about how the multi-quote function works

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=388346"

Can you flesh out your idea about involuntarily, glimpse a much broader 'present moment' than one would normally. I'm not quite getting what you mean.

And I think I need to ask you again -- given the normalcy and pedestrian nature of coincidences -- what would you consider an "unusual rate" of their occurrences?

Present moment;
Consider a fly. It's present moment would be much shorter than a humans - I'm speaking from the point of view of perception, not actual time. It might experience one second of time, the way I might experience 10 seconds, or a minute, even. I would view it's furious flight as a blur - it would view it's own as normal. OTOH, It would view me as a mass of slow moving substance that it could run rings around. For practical purposes, therefore, it's present, is much smaller and sharper than mine.

Yet if it could 'plug into' my mentality, it would get a far broader perspective of the world around it, albeit a much slower moving one. Things that it would have hitherto come across as succesive instants by way of it's own perception, it could now witness in one instant, as I would.

By extention, I toy with the idea (toy being the operative word here) that occasionally and involuntarily, a human might attach to a higher present moment - perhaps even has a dormant or vestigial ability to do so.

I'd like to answer the second part of your post more fully, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Each unlikey event could be presumably, be given a probability factor. If an event has a probability of, say, one in a hundred, and such an event (or similar events) were occurring, say 10 in a hundred, then that would be interesting.

Georgia - this is idle thought experiment on my part. I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything, nor create a new creed or somthin'

Cheers.

PS, thanks for the multi post link. I'll be checking ot out.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is a coincidence.

Prove it. Show that this only happens as often as we would expect.

 

[jreelawg]

One day while I was in College, I woke up in the morning and started my one mile walk to school for an early morning critical thinking class. A ten dollar bill blew onto the sidewalk right it front of me. I picked it up, and on the way, I put it on the ledge where the kids in the elementary school hang out after school waiting for their parents.

Then in beginning of my class, the teacher asked us what we would do if we bought something at the store, and they gave us $10.00 extra in change.

I don't know how strange of a coincidence it really was, but at the time I thought it was kind of mysterious.

 

[Mu naught]

One day while I was in College, I woke up in the morning and started my one mile walk to school for an early morning critical thinking class. A ten dollar bill blew onto the sidewalk right it front of me. I picked it up, and on the way, I put it on the ledge where the kids in the elementary school hang out after school waiting for their parents.

Then in beginning of my class, the teacher asked us what we would do if we bought something at the store, and they gave us $10.00 extra in change.

I don't know how strange of a coincidence it really was, but at the time I thought it was kind of mysterious.

What does that question have to do with critical thinking? I'd keep that 10 dollars by the way unless it was a small mom and pop store.

 

[DaveC426913]

Prove it. Show that this only happens as often as we would expect.

No. That's the point of a coincidence. Two events occurring coincidentally does not require odds.

I fly to Singapore and, while on the beach, run into my ex-girlfriend. This is just an event.

I was thinking about her. This is just an event.

These two events occurring on the same day. That is the coincidence. No matter what the odds are, coincidences occur.

 

[alt]

No. That's the point of a coincidence. Two events occurring coincidentally does not require odds.

I fly to Singapore and, while on the beach, run into my ex-girlfriend. This is just an event.

I was thinking about her. This is just an event.

These two events occurring on the same day. That is the coincidence. No matter what the odds are, coincidences occur.

Yes, but if the frequency of occurance is higher than what the odds (if calculated accurately) suggest it should be ?

Is is then not interesting to ask why, and if there is any other influence at play ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, but if the frequency of occurance is higher than what the odds (if calculated accurately) suggest it should be ?

Is is then not interesting to ask why, and if there is any other influence at play ?

That is the point. Even if there is a genuine signal buried beneath the noise, we have never devised a test that could provide evidence confirming [or refuting] the claim.

We have no scientific evidence supporting claims of precognition. But we can only say that no one has been able to produce evidence for it on demand. This does not logically exclude the possibility that the proper test has never been devised. Perhaps it cannot be produced "on demand", and only occurs in unique situations - the parameters required for success being undetermined at this time. In much the same sense, most scientific experiments require the correct conditions for success.

So while we can say that we expect that all claims of precognition are really just coincidence - a logical expectation based on the odds of such events - and while we don't know of any physical explanation that could account for claims of precognition, we cannot say that we have good evidence showing [that we know for a fact] that all claims can be dismissed as coincidence. We don't know that these events only happen as often as we would expect.

The difference between saying, "we know", and "we expect", is the difference between philosophy, and emperical science.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but if the frequency of occurance is higher than what the odds

The frequency of occurrence is once.

If you are talking about multiple occurrences then you are making an association between this coincidence and some other event(s), and then you'll have to show that there's a correlation.

Asking the frequency of occurence of a coincidental event is kind of like asking what the wavelength of a rogue wave is.

 

[GeorginaS]

And, alt, you still haven't addressed this idea for me. Even if you're talking about the frequency of coincidences in general happening (as opposed to the specific events that they are ie: a chain of specific events called coincidences) how frequent is more frequent than anticipated? You seem to believe or think or feel that there is some rate or number that is represented by the word "unusual". I'd like to know what the threshold is for "unusual rate".

If I experience four coincidences a day, is that a sufficient number to qualify for "a high rate of frequency?" If so, why?