Could "luck" increase probability?

[EchoedTruth]

The talk of the RNG (random number generator) on the other thread here got me wondering... with probability being such a fickle thing; could one's inherent "will" or expectation of results influence and/or collapse probability into reality?

I, over my time in P99, became known for being very lucky with drops. It got to the point where I was expecting to roll at least over an 80, and would not be surprised to win even 1/3 or more drops in a night (in a 6 man grp).

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?

Any theoretical physicists are welcome to chime in here ^_^

[August]

No, not exactly.

There are theories out there that when probabilistic events occur all outcomes happen simultaneously yet we are allowed to observe but the one, fragmenting our universe into infinite planes.

If you were some sort of dimensional lord then perhaps you're just picking the outcome where you win constantly, perhaps subconsciously.

A more realistic explanation would be on rooted in implementation of the RNG. Once again, I have no idea how random is generated in EQ land as I haven't looked at the source, but it's possible, depending on your hardware of your machine and other factors that could be used to seed a generator, that your unique combination of credentials could lead to higher rolls on a modulo 100.

Extremely unlikely, but possible.

[nilbog]

http://tcrf.net/images/3/34/Fallout-LUCK.png

[Alarti0001]

http://tcrf.net/images/3/34/Fallout-LUCK.png

Win

[Ephi]

No, not exactly.

There are theories out there that when probabilistic events occur all outcomes happen simultaneously yet we are allowed to observe but the one, fragmenting our universe into infinite planes.

If you were some sort of dimensional lord then perhaps you're just picking the outcome where you win constantly, perhaps subconsciously.

A more realistic explanation would be on rooted in implementation of the RNG. Once again, I have no idea how random is generated in EQ land as I haven't looked at the source, but it's possible, depending on your hardware of your machine and other factors that could be used to seed a generator, that your unique combination of credentials could lead to higher rolls on a modulo 100.

Extremely unlikely, but possible.

We use the Sony method (http://www.ngemu.com/140548/ps3-sonys-epic-fail).


function random(){
return 47;
}

[fadetree]

Start with a few lucky wins in a row. You and your friends remark on your luckiness, which then sets up an observational bias. Subsequent 'wins' are then given more weight than subsequent losses are, and your legend grows.

There is no known mechanism by which your interior state actually influences external events, and it's been extensively tested for. There's plenty of evidence of your internal state being able to influence your PERCEPTION of events however, and since we all experience what we think we do, that's often as good as actual physical influence.

[Ele]

Your theory sounds like a Longshot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longshot).

[EchoedTruth]

Your theory sounds like a Longshot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longshot).

^ good 4 the lulz

and lol nilbog / Ephi

[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 :>

[Splorf22]

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. Imagine that everyone in the United States flips a coin. If you flip heads, you are out. If you flip tails, you can stay in. Now suppose we repeat this process 25 times. The probability of flipping a coin tails 25 times in a row is 1:35 million roughly, so there will be some 5-10 people left. These people will then go on Oprah and write books about their fantastic skills at coin flipping.

So if you have a thousand people on the server someone is going to get utterly fucked by the RNG at some point. Someone somewhere is getting 10 charm breaks in a minute, going 0-20 on fungi tunics (wait, that's me), getting 5 mez resists in a row on LB mobs, etc. And conversely someone is having great luck. It's just the way of things, the way of the force.

[EchoedTruth]

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. Imagine that everyone in the United States flips a coin. If you flip heads, you are out. If you flip tails, you can stay in. Now suppose we repeat this process 25 times. The probability of flipping a coin tails 25 times in a row is 1:35 million roughly, so there will be some 5-10 people left. These people will then go on Oprah and write books about their fantastic skills at coin flipping.

So if you have a thousand people on the server someone is going to get utterly fucked by the RNG at some point. Someone somewhere is getting 10 charm breaks in a minute, going 0-20 on fungi tunics (wait, that's me), getting 5 mez resists in a row on LB mobs, etc. And conversely someone is having great luck. It's just the way of things, the way of the force.

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. :eek:

[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.

[August]

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. :eek:

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.

[EchoedTruth]

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.

[EchoedTruth]

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.

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/2cb/80f/f4d/resized/xzibit-meme-generator-yo-dawg-i-heard-its-your-birhtday-so-i-put-a-cake-in-your-cake-but-the-cake-is-a-lie-03d68c.jpg

[August]

Let me explain then in layman's terms. Assumption of a false believe to be true can be used with very little rigor to prove that anything can be true.

So we'll take two statements, one false and one true by inverse, and we'll claim them to BOTH be true (since all false statements have a true counterpart).

Statement A = All decent raiders are in TMO
Statement B = Not all decent raiders are in TMO

Then we'll take an obviously false statement:

Statement C = The Easter Bunny lays golden eggs.

Then we can do a little of proofing:

A = TRUE;
B = TRUE

(A || C) = TRUE;

But B is also true, and !B = A, so C must be true, since this becomes

( B! || C ) = TRUE, with B being true and !B must be false.

Therefore, C must be true and the Easter Bunny is in fact shitting golden eggs right now.

As you can see, C can be any argument.

Just something to ponder.

[EchoedTruth]

Let me explain then in layman's terms. Assumption of a false believe to be true can be used with very little rigor to prove that anything can be true.

So we'll take two statements, one false and one true by inverse, and we'll claim them to BOTH be true (since all false statements have a true counterpart).

Statement A = All decent raiders are in TMO
Statement B = Not all decent raiders are in TMO

Then we'll take an obviously false statement:

Statement C = The Easter Bunny lays golden eggs.

Then we can do a little of proofing:

A = TRUE;
B = TRUE

(A || C) = TRUE;

But B is also true, and !B = A, so C must be true, since this becomes

( B! || C ) = TRUE, with B being true and !B must be false.

Therefore, C must be true and the Easter Bunny is in fact shitting golden eggs right now.

As you can see, C can be any argument.

Just something to ponder.

I'm a newb when it comes to proofs so I'm gonna take your word on that. No idea what (A || C) means, or why ! is attached to B ... :>

[August]

(A || C) means A or C, in logical terms that statement equates to TRUE if A or C is known to be true. In this case, we know that A is definitely true, so it can be said that

(A || C) is true.

the ! symbol is used to mean 'not' or 'the opposite evaluation'.

Statement A and B are 'both true' yet one is the inverse (contradiction).

So, A = !B and B = !A.

So, back to (A || C)

Since A = !B we come back to

(!B || C)

Well, we know that B is true, so !B must be false. This statement, however, was proven to be TRUE just a second ago, which means that C must be true.

Hence, we have proved that C is true with just a false assumption. C could be any statement.

[kenzar]

Do not try and define luck, that's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth; there is no luck. Luck is just your flawed perception of reality.

[koros]

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

[August]

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]

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!

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]

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.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/bubbles2.gif

[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]

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.

[Lazortag]

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.

[khanable]

lol

[Glasken]

lol

[rahmani]

Karma is likely just you treating people in a particular way and then them treating you similarly. Because people are social creatures so calling it karma is assuming there is some metaphysical aspect when there just is none.

Also zodiac and astrology, it's probably false but almost everybody in my family is a Gemini or a Libra. My girlfriend is a Gemini and so were the last 3 I had.

I have no idea why, probably coincidence or hormones.

[Tanthallas]

/wrist

[theaetatus]

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.

Erm, that's not 'mind over matter', that's simply a shift in perception. "Mind over matter" suggests either ignoring the body's reflexes (ignoring pain, for instance), or paranormal hokum such as telekinesis.

[theaetatus]

Oh and I wasn't expecting to see any Astrology any more, I thought the world ended for you guys last year?

[Lexical]

Erm, that's not 'mind over matter', that's simply a shift in perception. "Mind over matter" suggests either ignoring the body's reflexes (ignoring pain, for instance), or paranormal hokum such as telekinesis.

Hence my quotes. I was going for a more general statement and lacked the words for it. But thank you for your pedantry.

[theaetatus]

All corrections are pedantry, naturally.

[Lexical]

All corrections are pedantry, naturally.

naturally. :D

[Resheph]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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 :D 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]

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]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=LjghFeTlg1o&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]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=LjghFeTlg1o&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]

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? :confused:

[August]

This coming from someone with a Bible verse in their sig? :confused:

Shit just got real.

[Splorf22]

Science is simply doing what works. If you are anti-science then what you are really saying is that you like to bang your head against the wall.

There are plenty of awesome things that well trained people can do, and I am a big believer in the power of meditation to help heal just by reducing stress - you can google Gabor Mate for some great examples of stress and disease. I have a lot of problems with the science of medicine as I feel it is too reductionist. But I don't feel that it is necessary to posit the existence of hidden forces like chi to explain stuff like a monks body getting hot or cold.

[August]

>.>

[Splorf22]

I'm sorry but which label does sitting in a near freezing cold room, wrapping yourself with cold water, heating them to the point they are completely dry, fall under? That clearly has nothing to do with strength, acrobatics nor flexibility. So just a parlor trick then?

In fact both video's I linked clearly demonstrate feats beyond any of prescribed labels you presented. I guarantee that none of the feats in those video's can be achieved without highly extensive knowledge of chi and how to use it. These monks have demonstrated superhuman capabilities and attribute it to chi and I've yet to see anyone else able to do anything close to what they are capable of, without the use of chi.

I attribute my success in the solo artist challenge to a power I call Ji.

[Ele]

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.

Have links to these studies?

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!

Which version of the Zodiac? The original or the revised modern one since it was out of sync?

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.

Occam's Razor isn't a law, it is a principle and is used until a more sophisitcated explanation can be derived from study. What is science not meant to quantify? What are your personal anecdotes that cause you to rely on astrology and karma?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=LjghFeTlg1o&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.

What is there besides science to derive understanding of the universe?

I'm sorry but which label does sitting in a near freezing cold room, wrapping yourself with cold water, heating them to the point they are completely dry, fall under? That clearly has nothing to do with strength, acrobatics nor flexibility. So just a parlor trick then?

In fact both video's I linked clearly demonstrate feats beyond any of prescribed labels you presented. I guarantee that none of the feats in those video's can be achieved without highly extensive knowledge of chi and how to use it. These monks have demonstrated superhuman capabilities and attribute it to chi and I've yet to see anyone else able to do anything close to what they are capable of, without the use of chi.

I wouldn't call NatGeo television shows reliable evidence of anything.

This guy lol.

[Frieza_Prexus]

This coming from someone with a Bible verse in their sig? :confused:

Absolutely. I'd prefer not to derail this thread; if you're seeking to engage in substantive dialogue, I'd be happy to oblige you through another medium. I'll simply state that I have concluded that a belief in Christ is rationally supportable, and I'd be happy to share that with you if you're seeking in earnest. Otherwise, consider this tangent addressed.

I'm sorry but which label does sitting in a near freezing cold room, wrapping yourself with cold water, heating them to the point they are completely dry, fall under? That clearly has nothing to do with strength, acrobatics nor flexibility. So just a parlor trick then?

In fact both video's I linked clearly demonstrate feats beyond any of prescribed labels you presented. I guarantee that none of the feats in those video's can be achieved without highly extensive knowledge of chi and how to use it. These monks have demonstrated superhuman capabilities and attribute it to chi and I've yet to see anyone else able to do anything close to what they are capable of, without the use of chi.

The human body is capable of numerous feats that are extraordinary but not super natural. I can link you this: http://www.cracked.com/article_19661_6-real-people-with-mind-blowing-mutant-superpowers.html and ask: are these all chi masters? Or perhaps there is a fully explainable mechanism from which the abilities stem? Some of what people call chi is simply the ability to put oneself into a specific mental state that produces physical results, that fine, but to claim there exists a manipulable form of energy that performs work upon the physical environment? That is another thing entirely. If you ever attend a seminar on chi, you'll quickly note that much of what they do IS stage magic beginning with selection of the "willing member of the audience". Again, I ask: why has no one ever claimed the Randi Prize (or any of the others) for the demonstration of a supernatural power? Because they can't.

If you want to talk about chi masters, I've met many of the North American "masters." I'm even on a first name basis with one or two. I've always found it interesting how overweight they tend to be. I'll spill it: when I was 17, they had me believing. I drank the Kool-Aid straight up. As I got older, and hopefully wiser, I realized that I've never once seen an single shred of evidence for the existence of chi. As I stated before, the burden is on the claimant.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and so on. You're being criticized not because you propose interest in a fantastic unknown, but because your mysticizing it and demanding recognition of an inconclusive element. An element with no supporting evidence that is not replicable or explainable by some specific theory. I will be the first to admit there is much in this universe we don't understand. And I would love for chi to be real (Hadoken up in here, yo). But the proof simply isn't present.

Is there something specific that enables these people to perform such feats? Obviously. Should we relegate the unknown to the unknowable and appeal to mysticism? Never.

[Splorf22]

great link xasten! Had a lot of fun watching Machii Isao. That's just crazy.

[fadetree]

All science can say is that there is no evidence of a scientific nature yet of any kind of chi, or psi, or other mysterious abilities/powers. Science really proves nothing; it just reports on the evidence. I've never seen an electron, but the body of evidence in the form of thousands of experiments and several overwhelmingly coherent and explanantory theories leads me to 'believe' in electrons.

There is no such body of scientific evidence for such things as chi being able to actually affect the physical universe. I'd personally like it to be true myself; but so far I see no reason to suppose it is.

[theaetatus]

Otherwise, consider this tangent addressed.

No, you don't get off that easily. It's hardly a tangent, your apparent belief in the christian god casts doubt on any rational argument you provide.

How can you say "Should we relegate the unknown to the unknowable and appeal to mysticism? Never.", while admitting you yourself believe in supernatural powers?

[rahmani]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=LjghFeTlg1o&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.

Science is the only method by which hypotheses may be developed into theories. If this shit is real, it can be explained scientifically.

[Ele]

No, you don't get off that easily. It's hardly a tangent, your apparent belief in the christian god casts doubt on any rational argument you provide.

How can you say "Should we relegate the unknown to the unknowable and appeal to mysticism? Never.", while admitting you yourself believe in supernatural powers?

You haven't even read his reasoning on that point and you have already attributed a massive amount of beliefs to him.

[theaetatus]

You haven't even read his reasoning on that point and you have already attributed a massive amount of beliefs to him.

I have attributed one belief to him in total... That he believes in the christian god, which he states quite categorically. How is this a 'massive amount of beliefs' ?

[Ele]

I have attributed one belief to him in total... That he believes in the christian god, which he states quite categorically. How is this a 'massive amount of beliefs' ?

By attributing that one belief to him you also pull in all the other connotations that it brings with it without hearing or listening to his reasoning about why he believes it is justifiable; and in turn dismiss his valid reasoning on the issue actually at hand based the connotations you now attribute to him. You can find further discussions on this other topic in several RNF threads so as not to derail this thread.

[Frieza_Prexus]

No, you don't get off that easily. It's hardly a tangent, your apparent belief in the christian god casts doubt on any rational argument you provide.

How can you say "Should we relegate the unknown to the unknowable and appeal to mysticism? Never.", while admitting you yourself believe in supernatural powers?

This first begs the question of "what is a supernatural event?" Which can be defined as a suspension of natural laws.

I think it would be helpful to expand the scope of your statement. Instead, let us say "your apparent belief in God casts doubt..." If we accept the proposition that God exists under the standard omniscience/monotheistic model, he is by definition beyond the boundaries of reality. Thus, any action taken prior to the existence of our current universe is by definition supernatural. If we accept that He is indeed the creator, it stands to reason that at some point a supernatural act must have occurred.

If looked at through the lens of the First Mover/Cosmological Argument, we can see that, at some undefined point, an event occurred beyond this reality to put into motion events that have lead to our present day. This is the precedence, and one of the main rationalizations, of the concept of supernaturality. Thus, the precedent having been established, allows us to explore and investigate the issue of how frequently such events are made to occur given that it has happened "at least once."

I seems to me that you also mean to ask implicitly: "Why is one instance of supernatural belief acceptable, yet another is not?" More specifically, you ask the following: How can you say "Should we relegate the unknown to the unknowable and appeal to mysticism? Never.", while admitting you yourself believe in supernatural powers?

Such a view is rational provided that the person holding the view has a proper body of satisfying evidence upon which to draw such a belief. Just as I take issue with Nocturne's use of a National Geographic video, I suspect that you take issue with my own personal evidentiary standards by the fact that I am a Christian which is something that you find to be rationally unsupportable. This is where the discussion begins with respect to how high, or low, the bar should be set when considering evidence as persuasive.

I made the statement I did because to take an unknown facet of our universe and declare it utterly unknowable is fallacious. Christianity explicitly supports rational inquiry. (ACTS 17:2 being an off-the-cuff example). My own inquiries and findings have, in turn, shaped my beliefs. In short, I buy the Cosmological Argument. I find the Christian faith to be the most plausible. I find dispensationalism to be an exceedingly satisfactory rationalization for the structure of the faith's history, and I find a full compatibility with the concept of theistic evolution. All of these concepts have come together to form a coherent and rational narrative that satisfies my own rigorous (by my measure) standards. This is the essence of how I can say that mysticism is but a retreat from reason.

Though I am not Catholic, I very much enjoy John Paul II's notion that " Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."

It is my sincere hope that I have properly addressed your questions. As I mentioned before, I'd prefer not to devolve this thread into yet another firefight over religion as this board already has enough of those. As always, if you wish to discuss this matter in earnest, I am always available for those who seek.

Once again, I consider this tangent addressed.

[theaetatus]

I love how the old 'Please don't derail this thread' excuse comes out as a defence. :)

Belief in the christian god (a supernatural being) is by definition a belief in the supernatural. I'm not attributing any connotations here.

I'm not criticising his belief here, just pointing out the glaring logical disparity of believing in one supernatural, unprovable force and simultaneously criticising belief in a different, equally plausible supernatural, unprovable force on the grounds of its supernatural, unprovable nature.

[theaetatus]

I see how your interpretation of the First Mover argument could lead to belief in the supernatural, but from there it is a huge leap to believing in the christian god in particular, over all of the other possible gods. Why not Buddha, or Thor, or Mana-Yood-Sushai?

I am an agnostic and do not deny the existence of possible supernatural powers, but I have never seen a rational argument for believing in a particular god over the other possible gods.

Certainly this 'chi' energy is as rational a belief as belief in a god, as both are without evidence or proof. Perhaps chi energy is the force that created the universe?

[Knuckle]

I say yes, and here's why. There is evidence that dreams can be shared between individuals based on their synapses receptivity to certain electrical impulses. I believe on a microscopic scale our brain sends out electrical impulses, much the way a radio sends out a wave. So 'wishing' for something strongly, under this belief, would increase electrical impulses sent into the air.

Shared electrical impulses have also been studied through practitioners of Quigong which is about blood control in oneself. In large groups, energy via these electrical impulses is shared via large handholding prayer/rituals.

In other words, everything we learned in science class relating to technology we've made or the sun, can apply to our own body and even our brains in some situations.

In short, I do believe luck can factor into something based on probability. Does that mean I'm going to rely on luck by 'wishing' good things to happen to me? Of course not, but I'd surely try in a game of roulette.

[Resheph]

Did this thread seriously go from asking if luck could have some role in a video game to discussion about religion and metaphysics?

[theaetatus]

By the same argument, however, wishing for something might decrease the probability of an event happening.

The question here is the problem... Of course luck COULD increase probability, just as the flying spaghetti monster COULD exist, or pigs COULD fly (given the right atmospheric conditions)

"Does luck increase probability?" would be a more useful question, though equally speculative.

[Resheph]

Luck, by definition, is something out of a person's control. Regardless of whether you're discussing a RNG, religion or metaphysics none of that applies when the question is regarding luck. Luck is random, period. Because of this, it can play no part in making something happen to the hopeful more often than others. If you believe that hoping for something increases your chances then other factors are involved, even if unseen, which means it's not luck.

Luck is a word used by people to describe a series of events because it's human nature to need a word to describe something. People generally cannot just let things be, they have to have a word, phrase or image to assist them or they simply can't wrap their brains around something.

[theaetatus]

Did this thread seriously go from asking if luck could have some role in a video game to discussion about religion and metaphysics?

Yes, how odd that a thread starting with a question about metaphysics could derail into a conversation about metaphysics! :)

"Luck" here is not just probability, "Luck" as the OP mentioned is a proposed supernatural force that alters probabilities. The OP is essentially asking if such a supernatural force exists.

[fadetree]

I say yes, and here's why. There is evidence that dreams can be shared between individuals based on their synapses receptivity to certain electrical impulses.


Such as?

I see how your interpretation of the First Mover argument could lead to belief in the supernatural, but from there it is a huge leap to believing in the christian god in particular, over all of the other possible gods. Why not Buddha, or Thor, or Mana-Yood-Sushai?

I am an agnostic and do not deny the existence of possible supernatural powers, but I have never seen a rational argument for believing in a particular god over the other possible gods.

Certainly this 'chi' energy is as rational a belief as belief in a god, as both are without evidence or proof. Perhaps chi energy is the force that created the universe?

Yeah...I'm a christian as well, but this is a totally valid point, and has to be dealt with. One way to do so is to claim that God is external to what we call the universe, and as such does not fall within the purview of science, which can only deal with things about observables inside the universe. 'Miracles' by C. S. Lewis has some interesting points about that.

On the whole, I find it very difficult to reject out of hand that such things as 'chi' and so forth exist, while also claiming that Christianity ( or any other religion ) is valid. This is why I just said 'there's no scientific evidence' for these things. Of course, 'believing' in something is often not correlated with actual scientific evidence. Faith, yknow.

But as far as my thoughts and feelings affecting such mundane items as dice rolls and so forth, I don't believe that actually happens. Look at it this way...if it were possible, it would confer such a huge evolutionary advantage that whatever creature learned to manipulate it would rise to total domination in short order...er. wait.

[AexDestroy]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_2_mason.pdf

"Conclusion
Our predictions for the meditation data, yogic flying and Vedic observatory
data were significantly supported and were in the predicted direction. Our work
adds to the premise that certain activities that foster transcendental experiences
(Alexander & Langer, 1990; Mason et al, 1997; Orme-Johnson et al., 1988;
Travis et al, 2002) may reflect a more decreasing directional trend (increased
proportion of zeros) in RNG outputs. Alternative explanations do not clearly
account for the observed results. The results were still significant even after
controlling for a possible cumulative drift of the mean from an unknown source.
To our knowledge this is the first experiment with specific predictions for the
direction of a mean shift, and it involves the largest number of synchronized
meditations recorded with a local RNG on site. Having a population doing
a standardized mental technique on a regular basis is advantageous in studying
various aspects of the phenomenon. Further research appears warranted to
explore group meditation as a venue for anomalous results with the RNG. Future
research could test the direction of the results, distance effects from the group,
possible lag or entrainment effects, experimenter effect, non-xoring data
techniques, group size effects, number of RNGs and possible auxiliary factors.
Theoretical questions could include a continued inquiry (Hagelin, 1987; Nader,
2000; Nelson, 2002d; Radin, 2002; Routt, 2005) as to whether or not consciousness
is a causal factor.
What is the possible practical contributions and application of this research? It
is conceivable that RNGs could be used to indicate directional changes in
a proposed global collective consciousness. Just as changes in seismic meters are
used to detect high and low indications of impending earthquakes, RNG outputs
could warn us of changes in collective consciousness while considering any
anticipatory effects. RNGs could also be employed to evaluate preventive and
ameliorative measures that utilize collective consciousness. For example, the
RNG could evaluate the efficacy of various technologies from many traditions,
including group meditations to reduce collective stress in global consciousness
in order to prevent and reduce local and global tragedies.

[astuce999]

Do not try to influence the RNG with luck; that's impossible.

Instead, try only to realize the truth.

There is no spoon!

[rahmani]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_2_mason.pdf

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

[koros]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg/300px-MagrittePipe.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images&h=168&w=240&sz=1&tbnid=mhuhgGhD8CGi-M:&tbnh=105&tbnw=151&zoom=1&usg=__nflzur-Mnd8A22wnnlQmpDyntCY=&docid=ijaVx8waaQy75M&itg=1&sa=X&ei=SS4VUY_SFKmOygGR5oCgAQ&ved=0CJABEPwdMAo

[Lubian]

I'm surprised many of you are breaking out on these random philosophical discussions and even thinking that "theoretical physicists" has anything to do with the computer RNG.

Nearly all computer RNGs are Pseudorandom, they're not really random at all. They generate a specific sequence of numbers based on the initial seed. Knowing the seed, you theoretically even know the set of numbers it will generate ahead of time. The initial seed is usually based on the time.

If coded properly, most programs will use the same RNG for everything (or a specific thread), which is what complicates trying to predict the numbers even if you knew the seed, since an unrelated unknown event could eat one of the sequence numbers for what you're trying to predict.

For a lot of systems (I haven't looked at the eqemu random code) there can be flaws or programming mistakes that make it easy to reverse engineer, predict certain situations that are supposed to be 'random', or make certain situations more likely to occur. There are a few open source emus that make this mistake :/.

Hopefully that answers your question about 'luck'.

[Resheph]

I think one of the more common seeds is the clock

[rahmani]

I'm surprised many of you are breaking out on these random philosophical discussions and even thinking that "theoretical physicists" has anything to do with the computer RNG.

What would a theoretical physicist have to do with RNG? Don't tell my boss I should be generating random numbers for her.

Also, as far as I am concerned - this is the only "random" or unpredictable number generator: HotBits (http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/), governed by rules that are epistemologically unknowable.

[Slave]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who has a classical science fiction education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teela_Brown