« The Misfits | Main | Gazing at Peeping Tom »
January 09, 2005
The Explanation & Probability of Cowinkidinks
Being a philosophy lover, it's no coincidence that I like to ponder coincidences. Not that I think the cosmos is literally talking to me when I encounter the word "onomatopoetic" in three unrelated contexts in one day. Not that I think God is affirming my lifestyle when the bus shows up in 10 seconds and all the lights are green. And it's not that I believe I'm actually influencing the world directly with my thoughts when I remember an old friend in California a few minutes before he calls. People do like to explain coincidences in such ways (as did some in our philo-cafe discussion), but I don't think it's necessary to explain a coincidence in order to appreciate it. Me, I just like to ponder the personal meaning of such wondrous coincidences (which isn't the same as "explaining" a coincidence exactly, maybe), and sometimes I just like to bask in the wonder. Interpreting things with an attitude of wonder - sounds like philosophy at its best to me.
Why are coincidences so wondrous, I wonder? At the philo-cafe, we seemed to agree that the improbability of two or more events occurring together is almost always the culprit. With improbability comes the feeling that, really, someone or something must be responsible for the otherwise unlikely occurrence (you maybe even be responsible, if unconsciously). It's at this point that explanation rears its (I think) ugly head. As I discovered in the conversation, there's at least one sort of coincidence-explanation which I don't like, and which I termed "finite explanation". And that's the sort of explanation which closes off further interpretation (and so closes off further wonder).
Like, say that I explain the event of my friend calling a few minutes after I think about him in this way:
"Well, there are mind waves (call them 'psych-waves') which move quite fast, as fast as light, and whenever I think of someone, my mind sends out psych-waves to the object of my thought. If the object of my thought is a person, that person will be reminded of me."
Let's say this is true. It may be novel to humanity at first to discover there are psych-waves which behave in this manner, but once science figures out how psych-waves work, the event of my friend calling, which earlier seemed a wondrous coincidence, will be about as interesting as water boiling because you turned the heat up on the stove.
I call this the "psych-wave" explanation a finite explanation because it closes off further interpretation of the original event. Once it's all explained, the wonder's gone. If there's no real coincidence, loss of wonder is okay, I suppose. But I think a lot of wonderful coincidences get ruined with unsupported finite explanations.
I could say more about that, but this is a blog, not an essay. Ultimately, I'm a skeptic of coincidence-meaning who still wonders at a good coincidence. You may tell me: "But how do you explain extremely improbable sets of occurences?" Like this: "I'm sure that, in all probability, everyone's due for a good number of improbable occurrences in life." Improbable coincidences would for that reason be probable. Probably. - Drew
Posted by lyceum at January 9, 2005 08:44 PM