Could "luck" increase probability?

[August]

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

This is a great explanation of the pure math at work here. I am wondering on a more metaphysical sense if it is possible to tip the scales in one way or the other. I seem to remember Einstein commenting on collapsing probabilities and outcomes. Maybe I'm talking to a crowd far too steeped in the empirical side of things. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you are wondering on a metaphysical sense you throw away anything contrived of logic and reason for hocus pocus.

If you start with a false assumption, anything can be true. That's some real math right there.

[Lazortag]

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

One of the things that people don't understand is that even though the probability of any particular random event may be low, with enough iterations it will occur. ...

This is just sophistry. There's always a positive probability of it not occurring.

[EchoedTruth]

I guess my point is that - with all the possibilities and factors that play into results of a certain kind (even something as simple as winning a roll), extenuating factors could tip the tide and compound probability into being much more likely for one person than the other. What August said in a way, I guess.

Probably a question more for those in theoretical mathematics/physics than compsci people :>

[rahmani]

No. Although if the numbers aren't truly random, which none are, it's possible to predict the algorithm. Or to behave in a way that would lead others to believe you had actually discovered the algorithm.

[EchoedTruth]

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

No. Although if the numbers aren't truly random, which none are, it's possible to predict the algorithm. Or to behave in a way that would lead others to believe you had actually discovered the algorithm.

That's kind of what I'm hinting at. AFAIK nothing is truly random, so there are ways to swing things to your favor.

[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.

[Pico]

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

[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?