My blog entry of 04.21.03 rekindled an ongoing debate between a friend and myself regarding the possible existence of psychic abilities. His supposedly conclusive argument against them is that, in a world with a population of 6 billion, 6,000 people experience a one-in-a-million event every second. I propose that this argument is actually irrelevant to the issue, that it is incorrect in itself, and that it thus neither supports nor damages the argument for (or against) the possible existence of psychic abilities.

Very briefly, we'll first play within the logic of my friend's world. Let us rephrase his conjecture to what is being implied: Every second, 6,000 one-in-a-million events occur. This revelation may inspire people to discount many amazing occurrences as mere coincidences, and perhaps rightfully so, but what if those 6,000 one-in-a-million events occurred to/for a single person? In such a case, only staunch denial could prevent us from becoming suspicious. Our interest peaks when it seems that probability is being strained. When someone violates having the "normal" amount of something like success or failure, our resulting suspicions encourage us to seek out a reason. A recent example of this is illustrated in the situation of "Future Man."

It is undeniable that, at first, my friend's idea seems to cast some doubt on the significance of any event we might have considered extraordinary. Being able to dismiss something as merely one of the 6,000 one-in-a-million events supposedly occurring each second appears strong enough to erase "miracle" from the dictionary, but some of his argument's steam is defused when one wonders what happens, within his framework, as the population of the world changes. If the population suddenly halved to 3 billion, only 3,000 people would supposedly experience a one-in-a-million event each second. And, if the population suddenly doubled to 12 billion, 12,000 one-in-a-million events would be predicted to occur each second. Should we feel any differently about our one-in-a-million events within these three situations? No. In all three, we will have experienced something whose probability of occurrence is one in a million. The probability remains the same, and the total number of experiencers is therefore irrelevant.

In addition to being irrelevant, my friend's figure is also incorrect. This is because he fails to realize that the probability of an event is not based on the population of the world, but, instead, on successful attempts out of all attempts to achieve the event. Certain events will succeed to occur, on average, once every million attempts. It is an event of this type that we term "one-in-a-million." If more or fewer people were to try to achieve the event, the incidence of the event would change accordingly, but its probability would remain 1:1,000,000. The likelihood of an event is thus inherent to the event, dictating that one-in-a-million events will remain consistently probable in the face of a fluctuating population. One would therefore be incorrect to extrapolate that even bonafide one-in-a-million events occur 6,000 times each second. Similarly, being a one-in-a-million event does not imply that one in every million people will experience or witness it.

Thus far I have spoken of one-in-a-million events as conditions people try to achieve, but what about those instances in which multiple factors fall into place to create an un-strived-for situation, such as the surprising, sudden appearance of a person one is currently discussing? I propose that we may actually be simultaneously too liberal and not liberal enough with judgments of one-in-a-million-ness in these cases, which I will refer to as "circumstantial." These two conditions may seem contradictory, but they are, in actuality, not. The involvement of an infinite number of factors in every situation means that each instant is completely unique - a revelation I formally had on 04.15.03. In effect, every occurrence is actually a one-in-infinity event. Labeling such circumstantial events as "one in a million" is thus simultaneously too quick a judgment, and one that attributes even less uniqueness to an event than the event deserves.

The real problem surrounding the deeming of circumstantial events as one-in-a-million is that their probability of occurring is, I posit, impossible to measure and calculate. In addition to there being infinite factors involved, we have no way of measuring them. Returning to the example of the surprise visitor, do we calculate the likelihood of the person being a certain individual of the 6 billion in the world, or do we calculate the likelihood of that person being a certain individual of the population of the country, state, county, city, etc. of where they happen upon some people discussing them? Even if it was possible to answer that question, how would the probability be calculated when the conditions are so in flux that repeatability is impossible? Quite simply, it cannot.

It might seem, then, that my suggestion that each instant is a one-in-infinity event would be detrimental to any argument for the possible existence of psychic abilities. I propose that it is not. The conjecture was useful in demonstrating that the likelihood of circumstantial events are impossible to measure due to the innumerable and/or unrepeatable factors involved, but it is meaningless when considering events under stricter conditions. Operating under a finite, known set of conditions is what gives probability its power to predict. Psychic powers, then, are to be suspected in cases where an individual succeeds to defy probability, and the only way to prove their existence is to demonstrate that exact feat under strictly monitored conditions. Studies analogous to these demonstrating mental influence on random number generators must be conducted to investigate the existence of other types of psychic abilities. To dismiss the possibility of the existence of psychic abilities before the results of such studies are available is to be unreasonably close-minded.

My friend's supposedly conclusive argument against the possible existence of psychic abilities has been rendered powerless, but the existence of psychic abilities is far from proven. We must agree that it is now up to rigorous scientific investigation to determine the truth.