Could "luck" increase probability?

[August]

Originally Posted by koros [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This thread is going to make a lot of dead physicists roll over in their graves.

100% Agreed

[koros]

Believe whatever you want, but don't try to co-opt statistics or quantum physics to do it, cool?

[SamwiseRed]

ah shit someone brought up the zodiac, looks like we've gone full retard.

[August]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Eh the Zodiac couldn't possibly be more accurate. Read a detailed profile for your zodiac sign some time. Most people associate astrology with shitty horoscopes in newspapers when it is actually far deeper then that. Also, as a Sagittarius myself I can attest to the fact that I am far luckier then most people.

p.s. nice post count, I can tell you're doing big things!

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, as a Sagittarius myself I can attest to the fact that I am far luckier then most people.

I hope so hard that you are trolling.

[senna]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well it's been proven that thoughts can affect reality so it could be possible. Another thing to note is that certain zodiac signs are notoriously lucky compared to others. Sagittarius is the luckiest of the signs for sure but any of the fire signs(Aries, Leo's) are also notoriously lucky.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Pico]

the only thing ive learned from this thread is op likely very annoying irl

[Harv]

One could replace the word luck with karma if they are spiritually minded.

There's plenty of scientific research on how your thoughts affect the physical world. Dr Emoto's water crystals come to mind.

Whether "luck" or "karma" are real are debatable. It's interesting to note though that people who consider themselves "lucky" tend to focus on the positive things in life. Perhaps their subconscious filters out the negative?

[rahmani]

Although none of the hypotheses in this thread are false, in the sense of 100% false, they do not satisfy at least two of the main criteria of science. First, they aren't falsifiable and almost certainly violate Occam's razor.

[xarzzardorn]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You speak of Occam's razor like it's an infallible law. There are some things science was just not meant to quantify. I just know from personal experience that things like astrology and karma are real things. I guess some things you have to experience in order to actually understand them.

lol

[Lexical]

The problem with OP's argument is that it asserts a global truth based on an individual's observations. While I do believe in the philosophy of "mind over matter" in that your mind can perceive reality in a different way and thus shape an individual reality (e.g. schizophrenics), it is not an adequate observation for global truths which must be tested and verified amongst other people. It is basically a problem of a small sample size.