Statistics and Reality: How They Interact is Weird

I just came across this picture:

(click here to enlarge)

(from here, in case you'd like to know.)

This is a great example of how funky statistics can be, because the answer actually depends on your point of reference and assumptions.

Firstly, the chart above treats each of those events as if they are perfectly random. They're not, though I doubt incorporating more detail would change the final result for practical purposes, so we'll let that be.

If the question is simply, 'what are the odds of each of these random events occurring in exactly this combination', then the odds of you coming out as you are seems infinitely low.

But if you weren't this 'you' you would be a different 'you'. You can't be someone else, and someone who doesn't exist cannot ask this question at all, so from that perspective the odds of you being you are 100%. This hinges on the definition of the question as, 'the odds of you being you.' X will always equal x, no matter how many numbers x could possibly be.

Similarly, I've heard the question, 'of all the billions of planets in the universe, what are the odds of you having been born on one that supports life?' (usually as support for the existence of god). Well, you certainly couldn't have been born on a planet that doesn't support life, could you? The question is a tautology - it is, by definition, true (1/1 probability) for anyone capable of asking it.

From a purely statistical perspective, there's also the issue of timeframe. A lot of people don't realize that point of reference in time changes probability. Here's an example:

• Let's say the odds of rolling any given number on a 6 sided die are equal. You plan to roll it twice. 
• Before you roll the die, there is a 1/6 chance that a pre-selected number will come up during any given roll. There's a 1/36 chance that it will come up both times. (1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36)
• You make the first roll and it comes up your chosen number. 
• Now what are the odds of the second die being that number? 1/6. Nothing's changed. 
• But what are the odds of the first roll being that number? 1/1, because it already happened. 
• And what are the odds of the number coming up both times? Now it's 1/6, because the first roll already happened. (1/1 * 1/6 = 1/6)

So, because you are already born, the odds of you happening are 1/1. And because any given person can only be themself, the odds of you being you are also 1/1. But what about before you were born? Were the odds of you immeasurably small then?

This ties into determinism and how it relates to statistics. Determinism calls into question the idea that any event in reality can ever truly be random. In the deterministic view, 'probability' still exists, but it isn't about chance. It is treated as a means of prediction for an unknown state of being, but does not dictate the actual odds of that that state, which are always 100% for one thing and 0% for everything else. This makes even more sense if you think of time existing as a dimension.

"What about Schrodinger's Cat?"
Schrodinger's Cat deals with the concept that a quantum state may not be determined until it is observed.

Schrodinger's Cat was originally a thought experiment criticizing a part of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics that seemed paradoxical. It's not and never was intended to be taken as a demonstration of the mechanics, as it often is. It actually represents a unresolved problem in our understanding of how quantum mechanics work. Quantum superposition, entanglement, and indeterminacy (not all of which are actually the focus of the thought experiment) are known phenomena, but not explained ones, and the question of whether quantum mechanics follow deterministic laws is still debated. (More on that in a later article.)

Regardless of that, we are not quantum states. We exist in a level of reality that is, for all practical purposes, believed to be deterministic. And because of that, deterministic probability applies. You exist, and there is no other way things could be.

To summarize the issues here, the chart uses:

1. A false assumption of randomness
2. A tautological question to begin with
3. A treatment of an event in the past the same as an possible future event

But let not this prevent you from feeling special. The odds of you being you may be 100%, but the odds of anyone else being you are 0.