Could "luck" increase probability?

[Resheph]

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

So that's what I'm wondering... could "luck" or "willpower" or whatever you call it cause probability to tip in your favor? Whereas "unlucky" folks expect to lose.. and ergo do so more often?

In a MMO, no. In real life, sure, confidence has a massive effect on how things play out, but it has no bearing on software.

[Toehammer]

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.

Yes, thoughts can affect reality. If electrons in my brain choose the circuit that results in "extend clenched fist and punch horoscope enthusiast" then my thoughts have affected reality.

Aboout zodiac signs... no, just no. Everything you are saying is completely wrong. The idea about "lucky" and zodiac signs is 100% derived from the fact that people are either optimistic or pessimistic and tend to focus on certain outcomes. Also, some people have a propensity for being successful, and others for sucking. The perception of "lucky" typically is self-proclaimed by an optimist, or Person A says Person B is "lucky" if Person A pessimistic about his/her own situation. Is the man who wins the lottery on Wednesday but suffers a fatal car accident on Thursday "lucky"? It is all about perception.

The only logical argument for astrological personalities I could ever think of is that certain people who are born during a season, for example winter, might have lower melatonin or Vitamin D intake in (perhaps a critical?) first stage of their life, compared to someone born during spring/summer. I have no idea about infant vitamin research, so this idea may or may not be true. But at least it has SOME logic built into it.

The old Louis Pasteur quote "Chance favors the prepared mind" cannot be more true. Most luck is just perceived, but is really jumping on a good opportunity because you know it when you see it.

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.

I am a physicist, and I do research in condensed matter physics but also some quantum optics and probability.

This thread is based on a huge flawed assumption: that measurements of one's own "luck" to get an accurate picture of a statistic like how a video game RNG works, you need to take a large sample size, in an unbiased way. When you take a sample size N of measurements you expect square root of N in statistical fluctuations. For example, if I flip a coin 16 times, I expect things to possibily fluctuate 16^0.5 or ± 4, so I could have 4 heads and 12 tails... this would not be statistically unreasonable. But if I flip the coin 100 times, I would reasonably expect up to ±10, or 40 heads 60 tails for example. If I flip the coin 10000000000 times, I can reasonably expect fluctuations ±100000, or 9999900000 heads 10000100000 tails. As you can see, the fluctuations get SMALLER and SMALLER and SMALLER related to the sample size as you approach large numbers. However, I could get all of my heads first and all my tails second... but if I stopped after the heads, my statistics would seem "lucky".

My guess is your sample size is like 16 item drops for large grind sessions in a big group... not statistically unreasonable that you (original poster EchoedTruth) can feel lucky some nights. Until you tap your brain neurons into your computer motherboard (or p1999 server, no idea where the RNG calculation is) you have NO effect on the outcome of a /random 0 100.

[Splorf22]

Whenever I meet a zodiac enthusiast I like to point out that because the Earth wobbles you were not actually born under the constellation you think you were. For example the sun actually rises with the constellation Gemini from 6/21 to 7/20, not 5/20 to 6/21. So if you think you are a Gemini you are probably a Taurus! Which means you have been reading the wrong column in the paper.

[August]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Whenever I meet a zodiac enthusiast I like to point out that because the Earth wobbles you were not actually born under the constellation you think you were. For example the sun actually rises with the constellation Gemini from 6/21 to 7/20, not 5/20 to 6/21. So if you think you are a Gemini you are probably a Taurus! Which means you have been reading the wrong column in the paper.

I knew I shouldn't have taken a big chance at work today. DAMN YOU LIBRA

[Splorf22]

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

The only logical argument for astrological personalities I could ever think of is that certain people who are born during a season, for example winter, might have lower melatonin or Vitamin D intake in (perhaps a critical?) first stage of their life, compared to someone born during spring/summer. I have no idea about infant vitamin research, so this idea may or may not be true. But at least it has SOME logic built into it.

Well there is also the school system. For example some boys will be up to 11 months older, which means in general they will be stronger/more developed at all points and thus more prone to leadership/success. Your hormones actually reflect your actions, so if you act like a leader you'll get more testosterone. I remember a study where they had couples gaze dreamily into each others eyes for 15 minutes or something; apparently this lead to quite a few dates [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] This is also why we have so many masculine women in the US; when women are put in leadership/competitive positions the testosterone starts flowing as the body adapts.

Also my understanding of central limit theorem was that the sum of a series of N iid random variables had the same variance as any individual variance. I did a test of this though and with the lisp pseudorandom number generator the deviation goes as roughly sqrt(n). So I guess I need to review my old college statistics somewhere.

[EchoedTruth]

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

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

Way to make an inane statement with no reasoning behind it.

I like the responses in this thread... I guess I should have elaborated more that I am questioning the mind's control over external matter/energy. It resulted from a long night of weed and reading over stuff like: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.04/pear.html

[kenzar]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...ghFeTlg1o&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WajTafbG7II

Science has no fucking clue how this is possible, yet it still is. Sorry but if you think science is the end all be all of understanding the universe then you're simply a retard, no question about it. Herp derp, there's no such thing as chi guys. Clearly.

So what are you saying? Science will never understand chi or it currently can't offer an accurate description of chi?

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...ghFeTlg1o&NR=1 Herp derp, there's no such thing as chi guys. Clearly.

I assume by "chi" that you mean a form of tangible energy that can be invoked and manipulated by the human body to perform supernatural feats, then yes, there is no such thing.

In regards to the NatGeo video you posted, Some of the things the touring Shaolin monks do are incredible feats of strength, acrobatics, and flexibility; others are simply parlor tricks or adopted stage magic. There is not a single "chi master" in modern history that can demonstrate any form of "chi" or energy manipulation on any level.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. Don't trot out Shaolin videos to make your point. Just because you say science can't explain them, don't make it true. There's a reason the James Randi prize from supernatural talent has not been claimed by any of these supposed chi masters. All modern chi proponents have utterly failed to produce even a single verifiable instance of energy manipulation or other supernatural chi talent.

It's simply charlatanism and chicanery.

[EchoedTruth]

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

I assume by "chi" that you mean a form of tangible energy that can be invoked and manipulated by the human body to perform supernatural feats, then yes, there is no such thing.

In regards to the NatGeo video you posted, Some of the things the touring Shaolin monks do are incredible feats of strength, acrobatics, and flexibility; others are simply parlor tricks or adopted stage magic. There is not a single "chi master" in modern history that can demonstrate any form of "chi" or energy manipulation on any level.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. Don't trot out Shaolin videos to make your point. Just because you say science can't explain them, don't make it true. There's a reason the James Randi prize from supernatural talent has not been claimed by any of these supposed chi masters. All modern chi proponents have utterly failed to produce even a single verifiable instance of energy manipulation or other supernatural chi talent.

It's simply charlatanism and chicanery.

This coming from someone with a Bible verse in their sig? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[August]

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

This coming from someone with a Bible verse in their sig? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shit just got real.