coincidence :: does it exist?

Post Reply New Topic

Note about the information issue:

If you think even the most clever scientist ever (IQ->inf ) will not be able to to predict the outcome of some experiments because even he won't be able to obtain the needed information, and that that's called coincidence. So our incapability to obtain (or use) information is what we call coincidence. Then I think you would have to vote "yes (because we will never have enough information)".

But if you think coincidence exists, and even if we would be able to obtain and use all information about an experiment, we would still not be able to predict the outcome in some cases. I think you should answer "yes (but it is not related to the information we have)"

I chose "yes (but it is not related to the information we have)"

Thanks Alex,

I hope you are right. Any ideas where this coincidence comes from?

I read in a book that: the fact that we will never be able to determin the exact position and speed of a elementary part (is that correct English?) without disturbing it is the proof that coincidece exists. But I do not agree, I think the fact that we can not measure it is a practical problem, but it is not the same as coincidence.

And if the answer is "no" everything seems so useless to me. Because if everything is predictable (in theory only of course, but still) everything must be determined as well.

I am still thinking about it myself BTW

Last edited by omega on 13 Dec 2005, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't care....





.....what's a coincidence?

I knew I forgot an option, only could not think which one it was

This is an important and difficult question.

There's an important idea in quantum mechanics called Bell's Theorem, which proves that we can never be sure we have all the information. It's too complicated to go into here, but it demonstrates that the outcomes of experiments here might be dependent on events taking place right now, arbitrarily far away -- even light years away. Since there would be no time for light from those events to reach us, there is no way, even in principle, to predict the outcome of the experiment.

Of course, that doesn't mean some experiments aren't completely random, too. It could easily be a combination of both, or not, depending on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you subscribe to. I voted "yes (because we will never have enough information)" because that's the strongest answer we can be sure of.

Jeremy

Last edited by toddjh on 13 Dec 2005, 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This reminds me of an old cartoon strip that B. Klebian (the guy that drew the stripy cats that were so popular in the 1970s) was describing why he all of a sudden decided to draw this cartoon of a guy in a fez and he says 'These cartoons just presented themselves to me over a period of about 3 months - for some reason . . . then they stopped for some other reason . . .'

That is what I find so difficult to accept. The fact that we can't predict it does not really make it random it seems to me. The universe itself "nows" so it stil seems determined, unless the universe is infinite maybe. If it is infinite it might make sense (but as far as I know the most scientists currentley assume that the universe is not infinite).

But I might take a look into "Bell's Theorem", maybe it will make things clearer.


(asking this because I suddenly realized today that this question bothered me for such a long time when I was a kid, and it started to bother me again today, after about 30 years trying not to think about it)

"an elementary particle"

(Interesting thread, pardon my linguistic intrusion, but you did ask )

Actually, it's entirely possible the universe is infinitely large. It's been a while since I've kept up, but the last I heard, that was actually the most likely option. The portion we can see at any given time is finite, though, since the speed of light is finite.

And even if Bell's Theorem is true (which it seems to be, from the experimental evidence), that doesn't mean that all quantum measurements are affected by distant events. Some of them still could be truly random, or locally deterministic. Like I said, it all depends on what interpretation of quantum mechanics you subscribe to. Some of them allow for true randomness, and some of them don't.

Jeremy

I voted "yes (but it is not related to the information we have)" based on your description of what that meant.

I find it hard to believe that everything occurs for "a purpose"; I don't believe in any kind of higher power or intentional design to the universe. So I do believe true coincidence is possible, meaning things that just happen for no particular reason, with no particular end or goal or purpose.

On the other hand, I also believe that there are orderly laws that describe the way everything works (these laws might vary with time and/or space, but in principle, there are always laws governing the behavior and existence of everything). That sounds more like a "no" answer, based on your last post, where you seem to be saying that coincidence = inexplicable even if we know all there is to know. *If* we knew all there was to know (which is debatable, and probably not possible, quite aside from our being mere mortals ;and at any rate, we certainly don't know it all now), then I think everything would be "predictable" in the sense that you could explain why and how it happened.

But I still don't think there is any meaning behind it all ....and coincidence to me means "just happening to happen, with no particular purpose or design," which fits in with that.

n.p. at all Grayson "an elementary particle" thnx
(the "a" iso "aN" was a sort of typo btw)

Ok, I like that idea. It would make a lot more sense to me then that coincidence exists. Somehow I can not believe in random things to happen without the universe being infinite, and if random things do not happen everythings seems determined, and that idea depresses me a lot. Not that how I feel about it makes any difference then of course, it wouldn't change a thing

Jeremy - thanks for the pointer to Bell's Theorem. I just read a little bit on it at Wikipedia.

It appears that my belief that there are definite orderly laws is called "realism," and that I am possibly (even probably) wrong. Oh goody . I like thinking about things outside of my own accepted box. I think it's time to go do some serious reading on QM. I'm familiar with the very basic basics, but no more.

I hope I did not make any errors, or overlooked anything, in that part.

I fully agree on that, but coincidence or determined both seem not have to have any purpose to me.

I too believe "that there are orderly laws that describe the way everything works". And it might be just me, but I think the only way to make things follow these laws and still be inpredictable is that the universe is infinite.

I just can not believe that there is some elementary part or wave or other "happening" that really is random by itself, or randomized by a size and time limited universe.

(edit: wow I really made a lot of typing errors here, I hope I corrected all now )

Interesting indeed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_Theorem

(not that I am already convinced, but I might be after reading it very very slowly)

Coincidence is fundamentally illogical and can only exist if there is a misunderstanding of context.

We don't know reality, we understand notions of what reality is. What is often described as coincidence (in a strictly physical form) has nothing to do with the logical case which has no corollary.

One of the problems with quantum physics is when they use a bunch of mathematical formulae to get accurate quantitative predictions, they believe these functions imply something further about reality. Quantum theory itself doesn't predict anything, it merely tries to explain why the formulae work.