What is “Normal” when too Normal is NOT Normal? (purpose, nature)

[Siberiaboy]

Is that an unanswerable question baked into the numbers and math we can understand but didn’t actually construct?

We come across enormous freedom to mend the rules of normal when having no anomalies is not normal.

It is indeed remarkable that it only takes 23 people for a 50% chance or higher that 2 people have the same birthday! This is one example of a non-anomaly though it is for the one whose birthday was the one matched.

More remarkably, eventhough it would take tens of Millions of Years of playing megamillions lotto to win a jackpot, odds are that 20,479 individuals who select random numbers ex. 3-17-43-46-67 megaball 4, chances are at 50% at least 2 of those 20,479 drawings will be an exact match! Which of those 20,479 people we wouldn’t know though.

Every day an anomaly will land on someone. Something never seen before will unfold but we can’t pin what it will be.

It could be that someone drops a deck of cards and picks them up blindfolded and they come out A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 J Q K
All face down first hearts, then diamonds, then clubs, then spades, then the jokers

The “Normal” distribution says about 95% percentile for 2 standard deviations above the mean, but at 100 percentile, well...... infinity st dev.... there’s NO upper bound.

If you take 0.0000000000000....1 % but with a Graham’s Number of 0’s, in that you have a non-zero real probability below that of a simulated spacetime universe whereby due to PURE COINCIDENCE,
The Perfectly random unrigged winning numbers every single week, came out
1-2-3-4-5 megaball 6... every time!

In this, there’s a probability of bearing witness to any number of things that never happened before and likely never will happen again....

That leaves me to one thing.....is God present in normal normal normal normal normal but not too normal normal normal?

[BirdieBelle]

I don't think it's baked in so much as it's infused.

And God is definitely present.

[Sonic_Spork]

I know that when I contemplate, what have to be small odds, for life to exist on our planet, the perfect conditions that brought about vertebrates, mammals, primates, us, that we evolved and discovered the discoveries that we have, when I do my genealogy and consider the chance that brought together all of these couples going back hundreds of years who paired and reproduced and my father and mother met and stayed together long enough to make me and I exist...the sheer chance of it all and how at any time, something different could have occurred... Well, it does humble me somewhat. To some extent, we are all either the product of an infinite number of chance occurrences, or an intelligent plan or purpose of some kind, or an unknowable combination thereof.

It's pretty cool, I think. I'm happy to be here. Are all of these chances unique? Is every thing unlike every other thing, or is it all (Dirk Gently moment here!) "connected?"

What does random chance and low odds have to do with "normal" though truly? And what does normal really mean anyways, in human terms? Well, I know I can speak to the word as it is applied to human behavior. There are things, attributes, ideas, choices and acts I have exhibited my whole life that someone was ready to see as not "normal." That has not changed. Yet I think of myself as very capable. I make a good living, keep a clean home, love my kids, enjoy my love life and social life. I am well liked and well loved. I've had many adventures. I'm pretty happy. To that extent, when I consider the lives of those I know who suffer misfortunes not of their own making, physical and mental health problems for instance, I am grateful for the extent of my "normalcy." But when it comes to other things where I march to the beat of a different drummer, I'll reject anyone's insistence that I ought to be more like everybody else, or that everyone should be less different or more alike.

Normalcy is a pretty subjective thing.

But the fact that any of us can even be here to contemplate or talk about it, is pretty abnormal, at least if we are talking about the odds of it ever coming to pass in nature.

[Phil75230]

Objectively, there is a statistical normal for any observable phenomenon. That's the whole basis for the science of psychology and sociology. "Normal" as a value-judgement is a confused matter - it's simply welding normal to value judgments, which is a fallacy from the start. Homosexuality isn't statistically normal, yet we no longer put a value judgement on it. The same goes for other kinds of behavior or mental states. Saying they're outside the norm is one thing. Saying they're desirable or undesirable is an entirely different matter - especially if the judgment is made on an arbitrary whim.

[MisterShipWreck]

Truthfully - it interesting at all the things that had to go right for us to be here right now. It is amazing when you think about it.

[E-Twist]

Look..... it's simple. I am normal. You and most other people ..... hanging on the fringe. :-)

[thedwightguy]

"Repo Man" kind of covered this a few decades ago. thank you, Mikey Dohlenz of "the Monkies".

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by Siberiaboy

That leaves me to one thing.....is God present in normal normal normal normal normal but not too normal normal normal?

It'll now probably be stuck in my head for hours, but,bastardizing the song lyrics …."What's god got to do,got to do with it?"

[Eman Resu VIII]

Normal isn't necessarily good. For example, a selfless, caring, genuinely decent person who puts others ahead of themself and doesn't believe in competition with others is not normal but is better than the norms that society has laid out; which is that we are an individualistic society with emphasis on competing with each other, making money and whatnot.

[arcleo]

For any specific measure, the most "normal" is generally at the average, median or mode, depending on which is most appropriate for the measure.

Now, we can discuss multiple measures. We can make a measure of "normalness" by measuring the number of anomalies for a number of different measures. The average/median/mode number of anomalies corresponds to the most "normal" on the measure of "normalness" so that means 0 anomalies is not "normal" in that sense unless it's the average/median/mode, if you get what I'm saying.