Ask HN: How is this not suggestive of something akin to a simulation being true?
7 comments
I wouldn't call it "coincidence" necessarily. More like "cherry-picking" and "spurious correlations". That is to say, given a very large dataset (like the recorded history of the United States, or the recorded history of Earth, etc.) you can trawl through it and find paths of links like this, where things appear to connect to other things, that connect to other things, etc.
But it's pure post-hoc construction... something akin to creating "just so stories" just with the elements drawn from an assemblage of factual events[1]. There's no particular reason to think that there was any kind of causal connection or other deeper relationship between these events.
[1]: note that in the case of this Lincoln / Kennedy thing, in the forms you usually see this distributed in, it appears to not be the case that all of the individual assertion are true.
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Kennedy_coinci...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
But it's pure post-hoc construction... something akin to creating "just so stories" just with the elements drawn from an assemblage of factual events[1]. There's no particular reason to think that there was any kind of causal connection or other deeper relationship between these events.
[1]: note that in the case of this Lincoln / Kennedy thing, in the forms you usually see this distributed in, it appears to not be the case that all of the individual assertion are true.
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Kennedy_coinci...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
All these data points crystalize out from these two events and seem connected. Even though there are a million other data points to both stories, that are not similar.
For example, Mr Kennedy was 3.2 inches smaller than Mr Lincoln.
What is amazing is your ability, to find this seemingly similar data of both events.
But you also forgot some, did you know both wore a top hat during their inauguration?
This is usually explained with focus selective perception. We love to find patterns, since they give us a feeling of connection. From this sometimes knowledge emerges.
In this case it is a statistical phenomenon, that reminds me of the Bible code. Check it out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code
It goes quite deeper than you think.
What is amazing is your ability, to find this seemingly similar data of both events.
But you also forgot some, did you know both wore a top hat during their inauguration?
This is usually explained with focus selective perception. We love to find patterns, since they give us a feeling of connection. From this sometimes knowledge emerges.
In this case it is a statistical phenomenon, that reminds me of the Bible code. Check it out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code
It goes quite deeper than you think.
Take just one example and go outwards from it.
> Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Is the Friday the only coinciding factor in their assassinations? What about months and years, since other parts of the 'matching facts' seem to focus on years. One was November 1963, the other was April 1865. Thinking from that, if the simulation managed to match year-digits on other facts why did the simulation only match the day in this one specific area?
Try that or work on each of the examples. Here's another one
> John Booth who assassinated Lincoln was born in 1839
False. 1838. This should have taken no more than a minute to look up. How did the simulation get things so wrong?
The answer is that passages like these rely on the reader not applying critical thinking on it.
> Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Is the Friday the only coinciding factor in their assassinations? What about months and years, since other parts of the 'matching facts' seem to focus on years. One was November 1963, the other was April 1865. Thinking from that, if the simulation managed to match year-digits on other facts why did the simulation only match the day in this one specific area?
Try that or work on each of the examples. Here's another one
> John Booth who assassinated Lincoln was born in 1839
False. 1838. This should have taken no more than a minute to look up. How did the simulation get things so wrong?
The answer is that passages like these rely on the reader not applying critical thinking on it.
Coincidences or not, why should it suggest a simulation? That seems somewhat unrelated.
I suggest it not in a way it would imply a virtual embedding, more like an occupational setting; which some may call an experiment. Consider this show: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_(miniseries)
I know right, why did goatse migrate to http://www.goatse.uk (United Kingdom) from goatse.cx (Christmas islands) it is spooky this time of year
How is that relevant? Are you acting in good nature?
Here are the facts:
Abraham Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday. Both Presidents were shot in the head.
Both were assassinated by Southerners. Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson who succeeded Lincoln was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson who succeeded Kennedy was born in 1908.
John Booth who assassinated Lincoln was born in 1839. Lee Oswald who "assassinated" JFK was born in 1939.
Lincoln was shot at the Theatre named Ford. Kennedy was shot in a car called Lincoln made by Ford.
Lincolns assassin ran and hid in the Theatre warehouse. Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ran and hid in a Theatre.
Both Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.