The probability of getting some head/tails sequence is near 1 (cuz it could land on it’s edge). The probability of predicting said sequence beforehand is extremely low.
The probability of someone winning the lottery is X, where X = the % of the possible ticket combinations sold. The probability of you winning the lottery with a particular set of numbers is extremely low.
As far as we can tell, and with the exception of the Old Testament heros, the probability of someone living to be 500 years old is much lower than winning most lotteries or predicting a certain high number of coin flips, though I suppose a smart ass could devise some exceptions to either. We’d have to better define “vampire” to arrive on a probability for that bit.
A house being haunted by real ghosts is actually extremely probable, depending on the neighborhood.
This is the explanation closest to what I was thinking beforehand. The problem seems like one of the difference between {the difficulty of predicting an event} and {the likelihood of correctly reporting an observed event}. I think Dagon’s argument about Map vs. Territory is a good one too.
Question for you, though… please define “ghost”? I have a feeling your definition is different than mine because I find events such as
certain environmental factors like (low-level poisoning from radon, carbon monoxide, et al; certain acoustic effects; certain architectural events such as uneven expansion due to temperature changes; &c.) cause minor hallucinations or illusions resulting in supersocial minds like those in humans perceiving “people” where there are none
very much more likely than
something of a person that exists independent of the usual corporeal form and (typically) despite the loss of that form is detectable by an uninformed and objective observer.
It’s a good point, though. I think minor hallucinations and illusions area much more probable explanation for ghosts—and lots of other alleged paranormal/supernatural phenomena—than anything authentic.
The probability of getting some head/tails sequence is near 1 (cuz it could land on it’s edge). The probability of predicting said sequence beforehand is extremely low.
The probability of someone winning the lottery is X, where X = the % of the possible ticket combinations sold. The probability of you winning the lottery with a particular set of numbers is extremely low.
As far as we can tell, and with the exception of the Old Testament heros, the probability of someone living to be 500 years old is much lower than winning most lotteries or predicting a certain high number of coin flips, though I suppose a smart ass could devise some exceptions to either. We’d have to better define “vampire” to arrive on a probability for that bit.
A house being haunted by real ghosts is actually extremely probable, depending on the neighborhood.
This is the explanation closest to what I was thinking beforehand. The problem seems like one of the difference between {the difficulty of predicting an event} and {the likelihood of correctly reporting an observed event}. I think Dagon’s argument about Map vs. Territory is a good one too.
Question for you, though… please define “ghost”? I have a feeling your definition is different than mine because I find events such as
very much more likely than
EDIT: formatted for better readability
I was joking about ghosts… :)
It’s a good point, though. I think minor hallucinations and illusions area much more probable explanation for ghosts—and lots of other alleged paranormal/supernatural phenomena—than anything authentic.