On the likelihood of extremely rare events
Allow me to clarify then for everyone who is confused. Incidents like crimes happen all the time. Therefore likelihood of people to commit a crime isn't low in a population in a given time. However likelihood of a specific person to commit the crime isn't same with overall likelihood of the population, so probability isn't homogeneous. A criminal who commited the same crime before might have high likelihood to commit it again.
However how low the likelihood can be for a person from whom we don't expect to commit such crimes? I realized that intentions of people in such cases aren't straightforwardly calculable in terms of probability perhaps it is even impossible to correctly calculate such values.
Therefore I gave a straightforwardly calculable absurdly unlikely case that might not even happen in the lifetime of multiple universes (Event 2, having a specific image, a cat picture, on the screen of random pixel generator) as a reference point to be able to compare how low the probability of a person from whom we don't expect to commit a serious crime (Event 1) can be.
By giving hypothetical bank robbery case (
Event 1) I tried to demonstrate a person who pursues a good life, finds such crimes immoral and has no apparent psychological/mental issues etc. to commit such serious crime so that action is so surprising that, if it happens, it even looks arbitrary due to having no obvious reason but it isn't a supernatural case.
I don't prefer to make
Event 1 more disturbing but if it's confusing, you can change it with other serious crimes with simplier examples in order to give it shockingly arbitrary perception.
I was wondering thus likelihood of a person from whom we don't expect to commit a specific serious crime (
Event 1) can be even lower than absurdly unlikely cases like Event 2. Can it be as low as literally 0% under certain conditions?
To put it another way, if we change the subject to ourselves instead of Person A we can simply say there is 0% chance for us to commit such crime because we know it won't ever happen. However there are statistics of seemingly similar cases which may lead other people who has less knowledge about Person A to give higher likelihoods assessing the incident one of the news on TV. I guess the fact that there are statistics about the similar cases doesn't necessarily mean higher probabilities for specific people to commit the crime as each case is unique.
Please note that my random pixel generator example is just a reference point. It concerns absurdly low likelihood of finding a specific image, therefore other static noise images that can be perceived by our brains as a cat picture is irrelevant with my post.
You may wonder why I came up with this trivial question. I am a curious thinker and it came to my mind when reading about the concept of subjectiveness/objectiveness in probability calculations thus pondered limits of extremely rare events.
Thank you all again!