Possibilities, odds, probabilities - all very interesting to note and comment on, but you are not going to find some unknown power or 'mind' behind all this, are you.
Poster Boy Wrote:
> One takeaway from that article so far, how
> important proper framing is.
> In my estimation, the best sync examples call for
> unique ways of framing, because the convergence of
> meaningful associations is always that.
> In the King cluster one is asked to consider the
> likelihood that Leicester City would be owned by
> an owner or corp named King. As I wrote,
> determining a clear-cut improbability is an
> impossible task - for now anyway. But this paper
> you sent got me thinking that we should be able to
> establish a floor empirically. I think it
> is reasonable to say that this King-related
> coincidence appears against odds of "at least" 1
> in 10.
> That's likely a very low estimate, but the
> main point, I think, is that this threshold can be
> established empirically: One could look up the
> names of all the owners in top-flite English
> football history, or of Britain, or professional
> teams in English speaking nations. I don't think
> this has to be just a guess, in other words.
> I would think that we could get a reasonable
> sample whose size was large enough to determine a
> 97 to 99 percent confidence that this King hit is
> "at least" 1 in 10, Ray. No vagueness on a low
> threshold, if we have very strong confidence, eh?
> Such an attempt seems highly useful to the framing
> of the aggregate cluster, and aggregate clusters
> in general.
> Accordingly, here we have the various King-related
> associations: 1/600 at least x 1/10 at least -
> Andy King and the King Power Corp combine to
> extend the King Richard theme against a minimum
> 1/6000 expectation - and likely one much greater.
> And so far we've only considered two of this sync
> cluster's elements.