Unlikely Science

Dear Readers,

I have a tough read for you today because one of my readers asked if I always write about whatever's on my mind. Well... no. I sift through information that I think would be fun to write about; for example, you wouldn't care if I dreamt about being emperor of the world, or who I "want", or saving people from fires, or to one day become a New York City farmer. I won't talk to you about how I saw Atonement last night, and it was okay, or how I hope to see Juno this weekend. Partly because although, some of that is true, I'm not interested in telling you about these things. But, now, because of that one reader's insolence, I will punish all of you.

To those of you that have known me over the years, you have known that I am, more than anything else, a man of science. And my mind wanders to a world of wonder and, I guess, science, all the time, leading to my various theories and ideas: most notably, my Theories of Nothingness (which is on loan to a PhD friend of mine at Stanford: whereby we, the scientific community, should really study the "nothing" in between atoms and quarks and strings because THAT is the driving force in the universe. Nothing. But, I will spare you the details of my highly technical theories, mainly because of copyright, patent, and trademark issues. But, I will not spare you my next great theory explored at length below.) I often think about what makes an art or what constitutes a science, (and again, I will spare you those thoughts and feelings... for now, except to say, that way too many things are called a science, when they are merely a pseudo-science, and way too many things are referred to as art, when they are really just expressions.) But, this blog, yep... it's an art and a science (and a sport, and I win.)

So, I was watching, PTI, (Pardon the Interruption; a two-person sports debate program on ESPN, which CNN, FOX, and MSNBC should emulate), and they were talking about the odds of something occurring, particularly the odds that Tom Brady will break the Peyton Manning touchdowns per season record (its a football thing, but I am not going to talk about football today.) And one of these two great debators (I can't really tell them apart), switched his opinion from six weeks ago that Brady had a 100% chance of breaking the record and now claims that Brady has a 25%* chance of breaking the record. (*estimated figure, I didn't really care about the number he picked.) So, did he flip-flop like a notable politician, or is there something to the changing of the odds? It got me thinking about the fluidity of odds in sports and in life in general.

So, I'm not sure if I got this from a movie or more likely merged it from a series of movies (and maybe some school, but probably not), but I "came up with" the double asymptotic curve known as the Probability Matrix of Certain Events. The name was carefully crafted for affect like the Laffer Curve. "Probability" because its about probables, likelihoods, and odds. "Matrix" because it was an awesome movie and it describes something. "Certain" is a play on words because it means both specific events and also definite events (I will soon explain). And I used "Events", because I wanted to make it sound festive.

So, let's pick a random event in the future that has yet to happen, like the creation of flying cars, or me dating Natalie Portman*, or the world ending because you hiccup improperly. (I used a "stage" name to protect her from unwanted publicity). The probability for each of these events because they are "theoretically possible" is not zero, but for all intents and purposes might as well be zero because they don't currently exist, nor is there a "probable" or likely scenario by which the event could take place. All events start out with a similar possibility, from the beginning of time (another blog entry) or the beginning of life (another blog entry) to the end of life (another blog entry), or to the end of time (another blog entry.) But, at some point, an event or non-event happens, so the odds must have changed along the way (examples include: regular cars, me already not dating Natalie Portman, you hiccupping from time to time because someone is thinking about you.) So, the odds probably changed over time, either in one giant leap of inevitability, or by a series of circumstances challenging the current odds structure. (Of course, we must question whether the circumstances were inevitable in the first place, and argue over the tenets of Calvinism, Deism, predestination, and free will another time because I'm on a roll here.) Probability is essentially a calculation of the ability to foresee the future, determining the possible outcomes of the future, based on our understanding of the universe through acquiring, interpreting, and analyzing past (and present) data and theories and incorporating that information into a new circumstance. So, 150 years ago, the likelihood of flying cars would be virtually zero; but then when we have new past "facts" such as the invention of a car, it increases the likelihood of a flying car. Again to humanize the theory, if lets say, someone invents some type of air-craft that can sustain flight in addition to the "fact" that cars already exist, the chance of having a flying car increases exponentially.

The bottom line is, yes, I do have a chance with Natalie Portman.

So, you're thinking, "what does this have to do with my life," and/or "why should I care?". This is why you should care (you selfish pig): because you have a near 0% chance of being hit in the face by a baguette, until someone with access to a baguette, makes the decision to throw said baguette (or a random bagel falls out of an airplane), but after it happened to you, there was about a 100% chance that it would happen (before it happened). So, let's say you want a promotion at work within the next 6 months, and you are under consideration along with two other people, but you are not the most likely candidate. Perhaps, you have a 20% chance at that promotion. If you work especially hard (until you get the promotion,) then your odds increase to maybe 27%. And if you spread a rumor that Candidate #2 is having a secret romance with the copy boy, your chances go up to 53% and you become the frontrunner. Then, when Candidate C finds another job, your chances increase to nearly 100%. So, yes, both you, and other outside circumstances and events can affect the probability of the future occurring the way you want it to or the way you manipulate it to. (If I were more than an office politician, I would describe both the extra hard work and besmirching the opposition as a tactic of "last resort". But, really, having no other alternatives is not a legitimate explanation for a politician's (or anyone's) actions, because doing nothing is always an option (just ask me,) and the politician just deemed the action the "best" resort to achieve his/her/our overall strategic goals. But, that's not to say that doing something, possibly even something harmful or dangerous, is not the best option to achieve a larger overarching plan for something we want, which may be a noble goal, like a long term peaceful or co-existing world or a reasonable and practical objective like self-preservation. This side bar is just to say that, there is no such thing as a last resort... well almost no such thing.)

So, you say, "big deal, I know I can do things, and those things can change stuff." Yes, but, over time, tracing the likelihood of an event would yield an doubly asymptotic curve that starts at a point close to zero when that event was entirely improbable to a time when it was an accurate assessment of the future event (accurate as opposed to precise because its not 100% chance and never will be even after it "happened", but more on that later.) On a 2-D graph, the likelihood of the event is on the vertical y axis with the 0% and 100% lines demarcated, and whatever you want can be on the x axis, though I will choose "time" leading up to the event (and beyond). For a picture of the actual curve, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Asymptote03.png

So, practically, let's say my hypothetical friend (imaginary) named Michael Jones caught a fly ball at Shea Stadium on April 26, 2007 at a specific time and in a specific location. And Michael Jones turns to me and says, "what were the odds of me catching that ball?" My short answer would be, "knowing you and your catching skills, no chance at all," but my long answer would be... "10 years ago, you had virtually no chance of catching that ball at that place and time, and this morning when you got here, your chances increased, and then when Jose Reyes [name kept the same to protect Jose Reyes from imposters] hit the ball in your direction, the chances increased exponentially, and when the ball was about to hit your lame glove, it became a virtual lock that it would happen." So, that explains most of my graph. The other part is why the probability of the event happening never reaches its destination of 100%, even after it happened.

First off, we're assuming that our world is real and things actually happen, so this is not one of those, "but maybe the universe is all part of the nightmare of a grasshopper" scenario (which is possible, but unlikely, and still wouldn't mean that Matthew Jones didn't catch that baseball.) Second off, we are assuming that truth exists, and things that happened actually happened, so, that assumption eliminates another strong philosophical argument. Third off, I am not entertaining the notion that we merely perceived the event happened, but it didn't actually happen because that would be another deus ex machina, which would break the rules of our hypothetical. Fourth off, I am assuming that using the principles of semiotics, interpreting images, and language, we all have roughly the same understanding of what I mean by "catching the ball". But, I would argue my sordid understanding of Social Relativity, a unique bastardization of my understandings of the highly regarded Theory of Relativity, and the widely critiqued and much maligned Theory of Social Darwinism.

The theory is best illustrated by the idea that the sun is actually revolving around me, (or you... I guess, if you are thinking about it.) Sure, there are holes in the theory, but its a work in progress (for example if I planned a trip outside the solar system and headed in the actual path of the sun, it would not revolve around me, we would collide.) But, in all practicality, I don't notice the motion of the earth (except with mood swings, but that's more a function of the lunar cycle... because I'm Jewish) because I am in an enclosed train car, (the earth) traveling a certain speed and there are other cars outside the train (the sun and the planets) and flies hitting the windsheild at ridiculous speeds on the outside (I know its a train, but who cares about my mixed metaphor anyway), and other flies chillaxing on the inside (and wheels are rotating backwards faster than my eye can capture). So, simply put, things are only happening in relation to or relative to other things happening. Thus, applying that to my life, or begrudgingly applying it to your life, it means that things only happen in relation to how it affects you. Thus, that tree falling in the forest question grows in significance. (Therefore, if you hiccup improperly and die, then the world actually ends?) Ergo, the sun revolves around you. QED.

Not so fast... even if that ridiculous crap were true, why would that explain the chances of Matthew Jackson catching the ball after he had already caught the thing. Wouldn't the fact that he caught the ball mean that right now, he had 100% chance of catching the ball? Good question me (and possibly you, if you also posed it.) Well, two things, one we could say that the chances were always 100% that it would happen (because it did in fact happen) and with enough information from the past, and present we (meaning God, or a supercomputer, et al.) could predict eternity (and infinity), but that is irrelevant because I don't want to talk about it now. So, what if Matthew Jackson caught the ball and it did not affect me; then it did not happen? Yes-ish. That's assuming: I wasn't there that day, which I wasn't and I have an alibi, Jackson didn't tell me about it (which would make sense considering he doesn't actually exist), and the distinct possibility that neither his life changed, nor did any other failed ball-catching-suitors' lives change as a result of MJ catching the ball. If it didn't affect anyone in terms of their lives, their actions, their thoughts, or feelings, (which you could argue is "nearly" impossible,) then it wouldn't affect me, and then its just some stupid tree in some stupid forest far far away (and not a person in Paris sneezing with the rest of Europe catching cold.) Thus, the top end of the asymptote never reaches 100%. And by the way, this holds true for anything that already did NOT happen as well, like you marrying Audrey Hepburn. There is virtually no chance that will happen, but don't rule it out completely because of the theory of social relativity. (Notice I didn't capitalize the theory that time.) FIN.

And so, now, you have a fully explained 2-D graph (I was hoping for a 4-D graph or at least a picture on the site) demonstrating the Probability Matrix of Certain Events, and you know a lot more about odds (whether it's true or untrue). That's why I like to say that there is a 50% chance of anything possible happening because it either does occur or it doesn't. You should try gambling with me.

Your Stockbroker,
ME PB

I was going to sign off with the "First World Emperor, Mark PB Ellis" but there are too many interpretations, connotations, and implications, and I don't want it to be miscontrued as me having a plan to take over the world because that's not what my Brain is working on (as you might have noticed) for I have my heart set on other endeavors. And, for whatever its worth, any part of the above entry that is not true was a joke or it might not be true in the classic sense of the word, but it could still be truthy in the Colbert sense of the word.