"There is only a 1 in a 1.5 billion chance..."

"of finding your soul mate."

"I think you're overthinking it." -- dialogue on BlueBloods

No, under-thinking it!

The idea that we meet other people in our lives purely by chance already assumes a random, meaningless universe. Of course, in such a universe "having a soul mate" is not just unlikely, it is impossible.

The idea of a soul mate assumes a meaningful universe where somehow some special, other person came into being just for us. That we would encounter them then would be designed into things.

Whichever of the above universes (if either) you believe in, if you begin to calculate the odds of randomly meeting your soul mate, your head is in a terrible jumble!

Comments

  1. 'The idea of a soul mate assumes a meaningful universe'.

    Not really. Evolutionary theory has a perfectly good explanation as to how a idea like 'soul mate' could emerge even in an environment that (based on the implicit definitions in your post) would be 'meaningless'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you trying to be as big a nitwit as possible on every single post?

      Gene: "The idea of a ghost assumes something about a person can live on after death."

      Rob: "Not really: evolutionary theory can explain why people can believe in ghosts."

      So the fruck what? The IDEA of a ghost, even if an illusion, STILL assumes life after death. And the IDEA of a soul mate, would for instance, imply the existence of a friigin SOUL! Even if the who idea is a complete illusion brought about by purely mechanical processes, the idea (incorrectly) relies on a soul, a meaningful universe.

      Delete
  2. But "finding good your soulmate" is a matter of belief. There is no objective soulmate oracle to consult. First ding my soulmate means finding someone I believe to be my soulmate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ok, I'll concede that one.

    But doesn't your post conflate what people believe to be true with what actually is true ? Someone who wrongly believes that 'we meet other people in our lives purely by chance' may in reality have a soulmate that they have a non-zero chance of finding and someone who wrongly 'assumes a meaningful universe' where soulmates exist may actually be guaranteed disappointment in their quest.

    Lets assume that 'the idea of a soulmate' has emerged in a meaningless universe. Isn't it possible that a scientist in such a universe could take this definition and based on his limited understand of causality come up with a valid estimate (based on empirical statistical observation) of the probability of an individual finding a soulmate ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I mean even if you assume a 0 proability of meeting a soul mate in a meaningless universe , there could be a whole spectrum of possible meaningful universes where the chances range from 0 to 1. I don't see how you can assume that in a meaningful universe where soulmates exist the probability of you having one and finding them is 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I don't know if I "can" assume that, because I did *NOT* assume that!

      Delete
  5. I interpreted your post to be saying "if you don't believe in soulmates then you should believe finding your soulmate is impossible, if you do believe in them then you should believe finding your soulmate is guaranteed". My point is that its quite possible to believe in soulmates but assign the odds of you finding one as less than certain (perhaps even 1 in 1.5 billion.).

    But maybe I misunderstood it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I interpreted your post to be saying "if you don't believe in soulmates then you should believe finding your soulmate is impossible, if you do believe in them then you should believe finding your soulmate is guaranteed".

      I know that's how you interpreted it. And, as usual, you read something ridiculous into my post that just is not there at all, so you could offer your "critique" of what I did not write!

      Just look back at what I write and see if you can find any place at all where I claim p(finding-soul-mate) = 1 if they exist!

      Delete
  6. Anam Cara. Much less controversial.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

Our precious