Numb3rs & Lov3 (Pt. 3)

Winkydo brings up a good point in his comment on Part 2:

there is no way to accurately judge real human behavior. after studying body language habits, i know that there is a way to accurately tell what a person is thinking about an individual subject and what a person is going to do about an individual stimuli, but there is no way to accurately know how a person will react to multiple things waiting for a response from them. you can make good estimates about what is to happen next, what direction the person is on a path too, but you cannot accurately determine the personality traits that will decide things like love, hate, or innate reasoning skills.

What I didn't clarify in my previous post is enough to write another post.
In the Sprinkler example from the show, Charlie said that there was no way to predict where the next drop was going to fall...he only said there was a way to predict where the source was coming from - a general region for the sources origin.

In the same way that you can't tell where the next water drop is going to fall, you cannot predict what the next decision's result would be. But you have a set of information where the past drops have fallen, and have a good guess about where they are coming from, and this enables you to form an estimate about where the next one will drop. This is called Predictive Analysis which, simply stated:

...encompasses a variety of techniques from statistics and data mining that analyze current and historical data to make predictions about future events. Such predictions rarely take the form of absolute statements, and are more likely to be expressed as values that correspond to the odds of a particular event or behavior taking place in the future.

By taking the information from the past, and the information from the present about a person, you can then use predictive analytics to form a statistically-based estimate about their future behavior.

The predictions won't be accurate, and shouldn't be considered as a method for predicting exact future events, but instead likely future events. Because they aren't exact predictions, there will be a range of possible outcomes that should be derived from the analysis, and then you have another choice to make: which one do you act upon.

If you take a moment to follow through the decision about which choice needs to be made, you'll find yourself imagining several future-worlds that are the result of your decision. Which one is the right one? It's simple...really, it is...

They all are.

How is that possible? That's simple too - if you know a little something about quantum mechanics...

Consider Erwin Schrödinger, a quantum physicist, and his example of a cat, and the principle of superposition of states.

Superposition is the addition of the amplitudes of waves from interference. In quantum mechanics it is the sum of wave function amplitudes, or state vectors. It occurs when an object simultaneously "possesses" two or more values for an observable quantity. This would extend to, say a BAWLS bottle - one could say it's blue...another could say it's shiny...it possesses two (and more) observable values.

Now, imagine a box, on the floor...it's closed and sealed. Inside is a cat, which was alive at the time it was placed in the box. Also inside there is a volume of gaseous particles - 50% of that is the combination of elements that makes up breathable "air" (nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, trace elements)...the other 50% is a toxic gas.

Without opening the box, you have to determine whether the cat is dead or alive. Which one is it?

You can guess about the contents of the box, and think "well, the cat is breathing half-poisonous gas, and half-breathable air...so he must be dead, since it's poisonous." Or you can think "well, the cat is breathing half-breathable air, and half poisonous gas, so the poison is probably diluted, and he's alive." Which one is right though? The answer:

Both of them.

Without observation, you cannot take measurements to determine the value of the system. So until the box is opened, the cat theoretically takes on two observable values, but this time not blue & shiny, but rather both dead and alive. And until you open the box, and measure the system, you won't know which value was the conclusive answer to the question.

Now apply this to the predictive analysis about what decision you should make - you can theorize about what is going to happen if you make a certain decision, adapt a certain way, or change someone's directives in their life with the hopes of yielding a particular result. But until you actually open the box, all you can do is say that this will work, and won't work, at the same time.

The answer, as Larry put it in the show Numb3rs: "... is that it's moot to guess about what will happen, until you open the box, and look inside."

All you can do, is do what you do, and hope that everything works out in the end. You'll never know until you try.