ASA Connect

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

I mostly agree with what you are saying, but there is an empirical question involved.

Had the order of the starting players been changed, I have little doubt that the accumulated small changes from that would mean that most of the later details of the game would be different. The butterfly wing phenomenon.

But a single individual in the stands? Not sure. The butterfly's wing may change the patterns enough as to affect storm sequences in 1,000 years, but it doesn't do so immediately.  So whether one person would be enough in that short time frame to make a difference is unclear.

A related note is that if a couple who would have had a child tonight is interrupted and instead conceives a child tomorrow night, the effect on future humanity is huge and cumulative.  Almost certainly a different sperm will get through, hence a different child. That child's friends and eventual relationships and offspring will all be different from what would otherwise have happened. Plus whoever marries that child will not have married the person they would have married, creating a ripple effect. Friends will be introduced differently, creating still more different relationships. Plus many of the children of couples who still form in the new situation will be conceived at different times than they otherwise would have, due to the addition of new friends and relationships, hence they will be different as well. In a few generations large numbers of living people are different individuals than would have been in the original case! It's not better or worse, just different.

Ed

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

greetings Dr. Robinson,

here's my problem with your position:  the use of the word would vs. could – when you say " I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently" where is your evidence that that particular event could not happen, you are suggesting that  Sean WOULD have some causal effect on the batter, but why? if you change your assertion to "I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game could have played out completely differently" then I have no problem with what you suggest --

thanks,

cheers,

joe

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

greetings Dr. Robinson,

here's my problem with your position:  the use of the word would vs. could – when you say " I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently" where is your evidence that that particular event could not happen, you are suggesting that  Sean WOULD have some causal effect on the batter, but why? if you change your assertion to "I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game could have played out completely differently" then I have no problem with what you suggest --

thanks,

cheers,

joe

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

greetings Dr. Robinson,

here's my problem with your position:  the use of the word would vs. could – when you say " I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently" where is your evidence that that particular event could not happen, you are suggesting that  Sean WOULD have some causal effect on the batter, but why? if you change your assertion to "I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game could have played out completely differently" then I have no problem with what you suggest --

thanks,

cheers,

joe

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

greetings Dr. Robinson,

here's my problem with your position:  the use of the word would vs. could – when you say " I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently" where is your evidence that that particular event could not happen, you are suggesting that  Sean WOULD have some causal effect on the batter, but why? if you change your assertion to "I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game could have played out completely differently" then I have no problem with what you suggest --

thanks,

cheers,

joe

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

Hi, Michael:

Your argument is interesting, but I think you are focusing too much on the meaningful predictability of the result, which misses the flavor of this idea.

Imagine that one more person is in the stands, and the batter who is third before the big home run happens to notice something because of it. That batter takes a second longer to get to the plate. Tiny change with no expected direction of effect. But it could still cause a divergence of reality. A second later means that both batter and pitcher are slightly different in position and motion. The pitches that come may be slightly different from what would have come in the original scenario. The result may be slightly different, or may cross a threshold (ball hit/not hit). 

Once even a minor threshold like that is crossed, even if the batter ultimately ends up at the same base, now we are 10, 20, 30 seconds and a different game sequence different. Everyone is thinking a bit differently.

This can affect what happens to the next batter, and so on.

Does the initial one-second delay mean that we should expect more or fewer home runs? No!  But if we knew there was a big home run in the original scenario, the one second delay makes it less likely that specific one would occur. It occurred because of the exact specific conditions, down to split second timing and attitudes, present that day. Any changes in those would likely have prevented it.

Again, I can't say how likely this pattern is -- it's too complicated to assess with any measurements we now have. But it's interesting the ponder!

Ed

Thank you, Michael.

I was gonna let this die, but seeing someone agreeing with Michael, I won't.

My argument does NOT depend on extremely unlikely counterfactuals. It assumes instead that once even one slight change happens, that the effect on reality is cumulative in basically random ways that grow exponentially in impact.

I like my example of the effect of a timing change on a pregnancy because you can more easily see the cumulation. Someone might argue that a 10-minute delay in when a couple has sex is of no consequence and will have 0 effect.  Any slight effects will soon average out. 

But that couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, the average number of males and females, tall and short, smart and slow kids born over the next few generations will be the same (within randomness), But the specific individuals may all be different (at least within a circle of affect). 10 minutes later --> different sperm impregnates --> different child --> other children of the couple different --> different friends, next generation in their circle, etc... It grows rapidly to change a large number of people, in random ways.

I said in my original post that whether someone in the stands would be enough change to cause a sequence that would change the bit home run is unclear. I might agree it was unlikely.  But what about something a bit more specific and visible, like a dog running across the field?  It has no real consequence for anybody's playing ability, BUT would the pitcher who threw the homerun pitch and hitter who hit it be in exactly the same positions that allowed that rare event half an hour later as if there had been no dog?  I would say not. The dog does not in the long run affect how many home runs are hit. But it may change when and where they are hit, in random fashion.

Ed

Michael, you talk about apples and oranges. So let me propose two.

Apple: The dog walking across the field makes a predictable change in the outcome. Because of it, team A is now more likely to win.  Or, maybe, because of it, the teams will both play noticeably less well, and the game will deteriorate.

Orange: The dog walking across the field will produce tiny, cumulative, but random changes in the game.  The precise split second decisions that led to the ball being in exactly the right place to meet the bat in exactly the right place for a home run rather than a base hit in the first inning will change. It is just as likely that the conditions will change to produce a home run as to prevent one -- it's random. However, as these random changes happen, they cumulate. Even one change such as base hit versus home run may affect how many are on the bases, how many batters come up etc.

The apple belief is superstition. I fully agree.

The orange belief is not, because I'm not predicting anything systematic.

What the orange belief does predict is that if the dog walks across the field, the game will play out differently.  So in the present reality, if some odd combination of events produced a special outcome, like a bases-loaded home run, it is very unlikely that exact event will happen again in the alternative counterfactual reality of the dog walking.

However, sight unseen it is just as likely for such an event to occur with or without the dog walking.

I'm happy to continue the discussion, but I am finding your tone a bit condescending. If it remains so, I shall delete rather than respond to future messages from you!

Ed

You are right Ed.

I deliberately changed the question to one of statistical modeling. I wanted to ask if there was ever a scenario where the presence of just one more spectator could influence the hitting of a home run that did not involve very inventive counterfactuals.

The most famous case of one fan actually influencing whether a home run was hit or not hit occurred in the 1996 ALCS when a young boy reached over the wall and caught the ball that in all likelihood would have been caught by the outfielder. For those not familiar here is a link retelling the story.

https://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/16-years-after-the-catch-jeffrey-maier-lives-a-normal-life-1.4098718

Ed, your discussion and questions have clearly hit some kind of nerve here. I can see why your speculations might be uninteresting to some people on the ASA site but it is difficult to understand the tone of some of the responses.

Hi, Michael M:

I changed the scenario from someone in the stands to a dog because even I had a hard time seeing how someone in the stands could make a difference.  I don't think that that change affects the basic "nature of reality" question, which is whether small differences have effects on later outcomes.

Again, going back to comparing apples to oranges, I wish to emphasize that I am ONLY defending what I called the "orange" scenario of random cumulative effects. Your words still hint at the apple one, which incorporated some kind of predictable effect. 

I'm sure you've seen it before, but my starting point is Lorentz's weather experiments in which rounding a figure from 6 digits to 3 did NOT cancel out or average out -- it drastically affected the weather predictions over the next few months in his otherwise deterministic models. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/422809/when-the-butterfly-effect-took-flight/

While the conversation is interesting and thought provoking, all of the examples and counterfactuals rely on one thing:  that attending or not attending the game would adversely affect the home run to result in no home run and that the hit would not have resulted in the run scored.  Attending the game could have resulted in a longer home run hit, a shorter home run hit, a fly to center field that was caught, a fly to center field that was missed, a fly to left field, and so on ad infinitum. So, given that changing the reality would have an effect, short or long term, there are an infinite number of possibilities, quite literally.  Therefore, the probability that attending the game would have directly changed only one of them or even a group of them, is 0.  It is exactly the same as the probability of a single exact number occurring in a probability distribution function – 0.

I would like to share, with all who read this, my view of "the nature of reality", at which point I would appreciate your opinions.  I will begin by pointing out what I believe to be a logical flaw in the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Specifically, in the scene where psychologist Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) about the first time he met his wife, there seems to be an implied assumption that if Sean had gone to "the game" (Game 6 of the World Series in 1975), instead of staying at the bar where he had just met his future wife, then the very famous home run hit by Carlton Fisk would still have occurred.  I contend that if Sean had gone to the game, the game would have played out completely differently, and the famous home run which actually occurred would not have occurred – that's not to say that some other famous home run could not have occurred.  It seems to be clear that neither characters Sean nor Will understand this – and I contend these two supposedly brilliant people would have known better!  It is certainly clear that neither Matt Damon nor Ben Affleck (the writers) understand this.

Along the same lines, I think it's a good thing that I chose not to go to the Cal-Stanford football game in 1982 (a friend had an extra ticket), because if I had gone, then "The Play" would have never occurred!

I have run my ideas regarding this situation (and more generally my understanding of the nature of reality) by some of my friends, colleagues, and students, and for the most part they think I'm a dope!  One exception was a 14 year-old (at the time) young man (son of an astronomy professor at my university) who correctly summed things up with the statement "everything that happens is a fluke".

So what do you think?

Dr. Laurence D. Robinson

Associate Professor of Statistics

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Ohio Northern University

Ada, OH 45810

(419) 772-2358

L-Robinson.1@onu.edu

From "Good Will Hunting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA

"The Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g