To put it another way: humans will never have the ability to see 0% probability in the universe. We would need absolute knowledge of everything in order to ensure that something is truly impossible. So what would be the reason that we should debate the existence of things that we know we can never see? It would be a useless breed of speculation. — Bird-Up

I assume then you have no problem with accepting theoretically literal 0% probability for the occurrence of highly unexpected thus arbitrary looking serious crimes (bank robbery, murder etc. as illustrated in Event 1). Your main point here is ''as we don't have absolute knowledge, and by no means we can access such knowledge either as humans, we can't know the exact probabilities for specific unlikely events. '' Therefore it's meaningless to speculate.

How do you approach then having 7 in a 6 sided dice which is mathematically considered as 0%, literally impossible as mentioned above by ''Agent Smith.'' ? I assume your argument then should be a deduction like that ''no matter how extremely improbable it is, we cannot leave out appearance of 7, a change of one of the numbers on the dice due to sub-atomic/quantum random movements of the particles etc. If we have absolute knowledge to confirm non-occurrence of such sub-atomic movements then we can be sure about 0% literal probability. ''

Sorry for speaking for yourself by having my own assumptions but I'm just using my logic to interpret your insightful points. I guess it's a philosophical standpoint which asserts 'anything can happen and we cannot be 100% sure about non-occurrence of even most unlikely events'. What about then paradoxes and clear illogical assumptions? Does your standpoint transcend boundaries of the logic?

Going back to the example of the random pixel generator, we already know that outcome of an image is not possible. The pseudo-random numbers follow a certain pattern of distribution and a period. All the patterns will (mathematically) never have the opportunity to line up. So the image in a random pixel generator would be an example of absolute 0% probability. But again, this is an abstract idea where we control all the variables; so I don't consider it to be true example of probability (just a description of the functionality instead). — Bird-Up

Indeed random pixel generator is another version of perhaps more popular Borges' Library of Babel or infinite monkey theorem examples which may be simpler to explain. Taking infinite monkey theorem as an example, mathematicians agree that a random letter generator almost surely produces exact works of Shakespeare given infinite time likewise a random pixel generator produces any possible image that can be created. This notion is also mathematically proven/supported by law of large numbers. However I guess your objection is man-made deterministic start point of the algorithms in such generators which qualifies as pseudo-random. I've found the article below which indicates the fact that true randomness can be still achieved by man-made programming relying on thermal and atmospheric noises. https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/can-a-computer-generate-a-truly-random-number/

Q1) Zero percent probability never truly exists, because the statistic is based on imperfect information from the past. We could always discover new outcomes in the future, which would change our set of statistics. — Bird-Up

Your elaboration is appreciated. I think you're just making a generalization by saying zero percent probability never truly exists. Can you explain please? Meanwhile I got the opportunity to ask my question to a couple more people who have thorough knowledge about probability calculations and statistics. They all indicate that essence of my question concerns conditional probability the fact different people can have different probability assessments based on their different knowledge levels. What they assert, serious crimes happen all the time thus it isn't a low likelihood given time in a population for a person to commit the crime. However this doesn't mean likelihood of a specific person to commit a specific crime has to be the same likelihood of any other person in the population. They therefore indicate that probability of Event 1 can be any value between 0 and 1, including literally 0%

Please note that I'm referring an action that looks completely arbitrary thus shockingly unexpected in serious crime cases like Event 1 yet not supernatural. It could be 0% likelihood to commit the serious crime for an average person who pursues a good life as long as some criteria are met by that person as such not having serious mental issues, finding such actions immoral, no other external factors that cause/provoke occurrence of the action, sheer/disruptive consequences of the action etc. So combination of these factors and knowledge level about that person makes the action shockingly arbitrary, if it is performed. Therefore possible occurrence of the action looks so arbitrary that its occurrence is evaluated with 0% probability even lower than most absurd cases like finding a specific cat picture on the screen of random pixel generator.

No. All sorts of things could happen. He could suddenly have a stroke which causes changes in his mental state leading to him robbing the bank. Or he could get a phone call saying that his children are being held hostage until he robs the bank. Really unlikely, but certainly greater than the cat picture. — T Clark

Your reasoning is appreciated. However, the robbery action at Event 1 is so unexpected and shocking that it's almost unexplainable. That's why I indicated in my question when defining nature of such events as (no obvious motivation and reason for such action, completely opposite character/behaviors of the person, serious consequences etc. but note that there is nothing supernatural about the action) So apparently there is no phone call saying Person A's children are held hostage. Closest explanation perhaps may be a change in Person A's state of mind over time but it's without having obvious reasons (not due to a stroke) therefore unnoticable. Thus such action is so shocking that its execution looks arbitrary considering overall reasons and Person A's qualities.

Hope I've made my reasoning more clear. Of course every action must have a reason, if it's completely unexplainable it should be I guess something supernatural which is irrelevant with my question. I'm here indeed referring really surprising and not easily explainable very subtle reason. That's why I also made analogy changing the subject from Person A to ourselves as 'It won't ever happen because I know' However I am inclined to think that knowing self here thus literally 0% chance has to have under some certain criteria as such not having a stroke referring your example.

You can change type of crime and the condition in order to make it more unexplainable and shocking. I was just wondering if the rarest probabilities like Event 1 can be perceived less likely than astronomically absurd but calculable probabilities like Event 2. We are unfortunately seeing cases seemingly similar to Event 1 every day on the news. However no person can ever experience Event 2 (seeing cat picture on random pixel generator) I thought perhaps there may be people evaluating likelihood of Event 1 very uniquely not just like a stats, therefore they can conclude it more absurd than Event 2 by assessing it lower probability. What do you think?

Keeping in mind that the screen showing the cat has the same probability as any other pattern of pixels — T Clark

Yes, that's true. However 99,...........999% of the images one can get on the screen of a random pixel generator are static noise. Only astronomically small percentage consist of comprehendible images including uniform real life pictures.

Thanks for the response but I'm not using one event to assess likelihood of another one. I'm just trying to understand which event would have higher probability. So it's a question that concerns comparison of the probabilties asking 'what are the odds?'. To make a comparison of the odds of two events I don't think they have to have exact same samples and nature. One of the events in my post (Event 2) is indeed straightforwardly calculable, on the other hand it's hard to make an estimation for the Event 1. The fact that it is hard to make an estimation for the Event 1 triggers my question.

Hello, I'm using this message to communicate with the administrators. Yesterday I made quotations and submitted two replies but they weren't published. I see that now I'm receving replies to my post. I will now make a clarification in reply to the user 'God must be atheist' If you publish it it will be appreciated. Thank you.

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!

Seems that my post didn't draw any attention :chin: Any response that helps to answer my questions will be more than appreciated.