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

By -
"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. rob10:22 AM

    '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. gcallah11:15 AM

      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. Ken B11:43 AM

    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. rob11:45 AM

    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. rob4:11 PM

    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. gcallah1:07 AM

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

      Delete
  5. rob10:24 AM

    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. gcallah1:35 PM

      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. Unknown6:00 AM

    Anam Cara. Much less controversial.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more