There are no accidents just probability and statistics

I think probability in our lives and the universe explains a lot. It shows us that there are no accidents. Probability speaks to free will all the way down to Planck scales with things like the Free Will Theorem.

For example, a guy rides a stretch of highway to work everyday. This stretch of highway averages 20 accidents a year and 4 deaths a year. The guy has the freedom to ride on the highway in the way that he likes. Let's say he rides that stretch of highway for 20 years and then in year 21 he dies in a car crash on the highway. Was this an accident?

I don't think so. As long as cars ride that stretch of highway there's a probability that someone will die and statistics tell us about 4 people die a year on that stretch of highway.

It's like that movie Final Destination but instead of death following you it's probability. This is true with car accidents as well as hitting the lottery.

If an event occurs then there's probability associated with it. So there's not really accidents just good and bad consequences that flow from from these events.

For instance you can make the free choice to go swimming with family. The good consequence is you have a great time. The bad consequence is you get bitten by a shark.

At the end of the day there isn't any accidents just your freedom of choice to go swimming. Out of 200 million people that go swimming on U.S. beaches each year, about 36 are attacked by sharks. So the event (swimming) is associated with the probability of being attacked by a shark.

Good and bad consequences flow from events like child birth, marriage, swimming, driving and more.

So to me there are no accidents. If an event occurs somebody will have to pay either good or bad consequences that flow from that event.

Probability answers the question as to why things happen.

a reply to: neoholographic

I think you're completely right and I can give you a few examples of why. When I play card games or other games I'm able to visualize possible futures and analyze and make tactical choices that Dont seem like the best ones to someone who hasn't analyzed the situation.

Then when the situation resolves in the future the other person thinks I was lucky. But it was not luck - it was analyzing probability and statistics to find the best statistical move.

The Schrodinger equation has been shown to accurately predict movements and behavior of large crowds of humans. Not individual behavior but crowd behavior.

Almost all accidents are not really accidents, there is a cause for them. Whether it is a lack of attention, you not doing things properly beforehand, or someone else caused them, most accidents could be avoided. Maybe the reason was from someone before you not doing things right too.

a reply to: neoholographic

There are multiple variables that interfere with your theory.

Firstly, it does not take into account "risk minimisation". For example, let's say I am the driver from your first scenario: what if I decide to drive a car that is equipped with the latest airbag technology and interior cushioning, and I happen to survive the crash?

Secondly, would you consider inaction to be a form of action? Using the shark example, would my decision not to go swimming at the beach influence the likelihood that some other person will be bitten by a shark or not?

Thirdly, many could argue that one is forced to make a decision that carries causal consequences (eliminating the existence of Free Will). For example, I could eliminate the chance I will die by car crash by never driving; shark attack by never swimming; falling over and cracking my skull by never walking or going out etc. but if I refrained from doing anything to reduce the risk of injury/death, I would probably develop deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or have a heart attack from lack of exercise.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

You said:

There are multiple variables that interfere with your theory.

Not really. Like I said this reaches down to Planck scales and the Free Will Theorem captures this:

In mid-2004, John Conway and Simon Kochen of Princeton University proved the Free-will Theorem. This theorem states "If there exist experimenters with (some) free will, then elementary particles also have (some) free will." In other words, if some experimenters are able to behave in a way that is not completely predetermined, then the behavior of elementary particles is also not a function of their prior history. This is a very strong "no hidden variable" theorem.

The Conway-Kochen proof of the Freewill Theorem relies on three axioms they call SPIN, TWIN and FIN:

SPIN
Particles have the 101-property. This means whenever you measure the squared spin of a spin-1 particle in any three mutually perpendicular directions, the measurements will be two 1s and a 0 in some order.

FIN
There is a finite upper bound to the speed at which information can be transmitted.

TWIN
If two particles together have a total angular momentum of 0, then if one particle has an angular momentum of s, the others must necessarily have an angular momentum of -s.

www.cs.auckland.ac.nz...

You said:

Firstly, it does not take into account "risk minimisation". For example, let's say I am the driver from your first scenario: what if I decide to drive a car that is equipped with the latest airbag technology and interior cushioning, and I happen to survive the crash?

That doesn't matter, you still have to make the CHOICE to minimize risk. I can have the latest air bags and drive safely and still get hit and killed by a drunk driver.

You said:

Secondly, would you consider inaction to be a form of action? Using the shark example, would my decision not to go swimming at the beach influence the likelihood that some other person will be bitten by a shark or not?

Again, it would be your CHOICE not to go swimming. It will not increase or decrease the likelihood that someone else will be bitten by a shark. There choice is independent of your choice. Here's mor from Conway and Kochen.

Why do we call this result the Free Will theorem? It is usually tacitly assumed that experimenters have sufficient free will to choose the settings of their apparatus in a way that is not determined by past history. We make this assumption explicit precisely because our theorem deduces from it the more surprising fact that the particles’ responses are also not determined by past history.

Thus the theorem asserts that if experimenters have a certain property, then spin 1 particles have exactly the same property. Since this property for experimenters is an instance of what is usually called “free will,” we find it appropriate to use the same term also for particles.

You then said:

Thirdly, many could argue that one is forced to make a decision that carries causal consequences (eliminating the existence of Free Will). For example, I could eliminate the chance I will die by car crash by never driving; shark attack by never swimming; falling over and cracking my skull by never walking or going out etc. but if I refrained from doing anything to reduce the risk of injury/death, I would probably develop deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or have a heart attack from lack of exercise.

How is one forced to make a decision?

If you make the CHOICE not to drive or to exercise, it's still your CHOICE.

a reply to: neoholographic

a) The "choice" to minimise any risks does not make you bulletproof, but it has the potential to interfere with probability and statistics. As well as the airbags example, I could too have asked how many drivers have never been involved in an accident before - another variable that has the potential to affect probability and statistics for the chance of dying on that road.

(The point I was trying to make is that your examples given were too general and not restrictive/specific enough to properly account for probability and statistics.)

Probability and statistics may be reliable some of the time, but they are not infallible. Somebody driving for the first time on that road can die in an accident, while somebody who has driven on that road over 25 years can remain accident free.

b) If their choice is independent of my choice, then how are statistics acceptable in this context? Shouldn't every example be treated as a unique situation where statistics are irrelevant?

c) One is forced to make a decision because sitting on a chair literally all day or staying in bed without movement over a long period of time will lead to health problems which are not sustainable.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I just don't understand your point. What exactly are you saying as it pertains to the OP?

You said:

a) The "choice" to minimise any risks does not make you bulletproof, but it has the potential to interfere with probability and statistics. As well as the airbags example, I could too have asked how many drivers have never been involved in an accident before - another variable that has the potential to affect probability and statistics for the chance of dying on that road.

What does this mean as it pertains to my post? When you say interfere with probability and statistics what do you mean?

I could have went twenty years without getting into an accident and if I make the choice to drive on that stretch of highway the probability still exists that I could get into an accident.

You said:

Probability and statistics may be reliable some of the time, but they are not infallible. Somebody driving for the first time on that road can die in an accident, while somebody who has driven on that road over 25 years can remain accident free.

What does this mean???? The person driving on the road for the first time and the person that has been driving on the road for 25 years are both subject to the probability of an accident occurring on that road.

You said:

b) If their choice is independent of my choice, then how are statistics acceptable in this context? Shouldn't every example be treated as a unique situation where statistics are irrelevant?

Probability and statistics are not dependent on an individuals choice. It's dependent on the population. The population in this case would be the cars that drive on that stretch of highway. This determines the probability of getting into an accident. So an individuals can choose whether to drive on the highway or do things like wear a seat belt or drive at a certain speed. The probability of an accident occurring isn't the function of individual choice but of the population or the event that's occurring. This illustrates free will beautifully which reaches down to Planck scales. So probability isn't interfered with because it's a function of the population. If 50% of the cars stopped driving on that highway that wouldn't interfere with probability that would just change the statistics because there's a decrease in the population for the event.

You said:

c) One is forced to make a decision because sitting on a chair literally all day or staying in bed without movement over a long period of time will lead to health problems which are not sustainable.

One is forced? How are they forced if they choose to sit in a chair or lay in bed all day? There CHOICE has consequences like I said in the OP. What decision are they being forced to make if they CHOOSE to sit in a chair all day?

There are two key points that we are disagreeing on:
1) Whether probability exists independent of experience (A), or whether probability is dependent on experience (B)
2) Whether Free Will truly exists (X), or whether Free Will does not truly exist (Y).

I could be mistaken, but it appears that you are arguing A and X, whereas I am arguing B and Y.