Regarding our perennial misconception of probability, Korzybski declares that any event, no matter how unlikely, becomes ordinary (i.e. ‘just as common as anything else’) when understood from a perspective that extends across infinite numbers of years. This is startling, because it implies that scarcity or the most extreme coincidence are artifacts of a chosen temporal identification perspective rather than the senses the seem to us to be.

This matter is intruiguing to me. I find at least two problems. The first is that of one-off events. Events so unlikely that the only occur once. Are these ‘just as common’ -at infinities- as say, some heart beating is? This question is not as simple to resolve as it immediately appears due to the nature of ‘duration’ ‘at infinities’.

But there is an even deeper objection, which is that due to the fact the incredibly deep novelty and uniqueness of each event or denumerable(no matter how seemingly similar, they are radically distinct) insures that there is no other kind of event.

All events are so profoundly unique that to call them similar is nearly or just as much a convenience of perspective and purpose as it is to call them the same. actually, a one-off event. There are no two ‘events that correspond’ except as a convenience, again, of perspective.

One plus one only equals two if we decide that the context and denumerables are commensurate with comparison. Actually, there are no two ‘ones’ that ‘equal’ two. There cannot be, there never were. And how does that appear, ‘at infinities’?