5 ms·

You know what I always find so hilarious. How people always seem to qualify luck - even when they show us how lucky they have actually been. I continuously hea

You know what I always find so hilarious. How people always seem to qualify luck - even when they show us how lucky they have actually been. I continuously hear statements like "it's partly luck", or "luck is obviously a component of it", or "luck is clearly a factor", or "luck plays a role" [1] - all attempting to downplay the enormous magnitude random chance has on our daily lives. Hell, they might even put numbers on it like "it's probably 50% luck", or "90% luck". Nobody seems willing to go all they way to and just come out and say "Yeah - I got really lucky and that's about all there is to the story". The just world fallacy is a very, very strong illusion. Life's a crapshoot. It's all luck. [1] - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5174488 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5174488

Jayschwa 14y ago
Are you suggesting that outcomes are purely the result of random chance, and that an individual's values and behavior have no bearing?
- confluence 14y ago
  Where you do think your values and behaviours came from in the first place? Your values/behaviours are given to you via both your genes and your environment - which are effectively random. If your parents were prone to addictive behaviour in an environment that provides addictive substances - you will probably do the same. This reminds me of thing I've always found highly curious about how the religious think. They can't seem to understand that their choice in religion is relatively arbitrary and geographically dependent. Born in America you're Christian. Born in Pakistan now you're Muslim. Born in India now you're Hindu. Born in Israel now you're Jewish. The fact that people can't seem to understand that the reason they believe in X god instead of Y is merely a question of a few hundred miles. Life is particularly arbitrary. For example: I'm an atheist because of my environment (middle-class male, western country, studies science and technology, with access to freedom of speech). This is irrelevant as to whether atheism is actually the right option (which I believe it is - but then of course I would :) - the key fact to understand here is how the environment determined it. Finally, physics eliminates the case for free will. So yes - you do what you do because you were set up to do it. We're all just biological machines.
  - Jayschwa 14y ago
    > We're all just biological machines. Okay, let me rephrase the question. Do you believe that a biological machine's algorithm (i.e. values and behavior) has any bearing on outcome?
    - confluence 14y ago
      Yes. But you should notice how we don't blame machine no. X for not doing it's job correctly (aka having buggy programs run on it) - it does exactly what it was supposed to do. No - we blame the programmer/hardware manufacturer for screwing things up - which in the case of humans is the environment and genes.
      - Jayschwa 14y ago
        Your reductionist mindset seems to be on a path of destruction, leaving many useful abstractions in its wake. Is a car actually a car, or is it just a collection of atoms? It's both. Does the car actually drive, or is it just physics? It's both - "driving" is a subset of physics that acts on a collection of atoms known as a "car". When people say "luck", they are usually referring to external circumstances not under the influence of the biological machine's algorithm. To say that luck is the only factor, or never a factor, is wrong. Given similar inputs, some algorithms will excel and some will fail. You certainly can "blame" an algorithm for certain outcomes. How the algorithm formed is a red-herring.
        confluence 14y ago
        > When people say "luck", they are usually referring to external circumstances not under the influence of the biological machine's algorithm Your DNA, aka the algorithm that is who you are, is given to you by the external environment - you have no control over it, and neither do you have any control over your upbringing - rich/poor/race/sex. Your argument is, well, void.
        jessedhillon 14y ago
blackman 14y ago
This is one of the discussed problems of philosophy and it gets a bit complicated when you start on quantum physics and relativity. Some info. http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1210/in-which-way-does-quantum-mechanics-disprove-determinism http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1210/in-which-...
- stdbrouw 14y ago
  Luck are unexpected good things that happen to you and that you didn't work for. It has little to do with randomness in a physical sense and thus philosophical discussions about determinism aren't really relevant in this context.
  - Jayschwa 14y ago
    Look further down the discussion chain. confluence has been telling people to "learn physics" and seems to be equating luck with random chance or determinism.
    - confluence 14y ago
      Luck is merely preferable random chance. I never argued for determinism. I argued for probabilistic determinism.
- carlob 14y ago
  Still our brain is, for all practical purposes, a classical machine. No quantum effects are observed at the neuron level. So we can't use indeterminism to save free will.
derleth 14y ago
> Yeah - I got really lucky and that's about all there is to the story Meditate on what a philosophy like this, universally held, would do to morality. Personally, I think it would improve it.

Jayschwa 14y ago

Are you suggesting that outcomes are purely the result of random chance, and that an individual's values and behavior have no bearing?

confluence 14y ago
Where you do think your values and behaviours came from in the first place? Your values/behaviours are given to you via both your genes and your environment - which are effectively random. If your parents were prone to addictive behaviour in an environment that provides addictive substances - you will probably do the same. This reminds me of thing I've always found highly curious about how the religious think. They can't seem to understand that their choice in religion is relatively arbitrary and geographically dependent. Born in America you're Christian. Born in Pakistan now you're Muslim. Born in India now you're Hindu. Born in Israel now you're Jewish. The fact that people can't seem to understand that the reason they believe in X god instead of Y is merely a question of a few hundred miles. Life is particularly arbitrary. For example: I'm an atheist because of my environment (middle-class male, western country, studies science and technology, with access to freedom of speech). This is irrelevant as to whether atheism is actually the right option (which I believe it is - but then of course I would :) - the key fact to understand here is how the environment determined it. Finally, physics eliminates the case for free will. So yes - you do what you do because you were set up to do it. We're all just biological machines.
- Jayschwa 14y ago
  > We're all just biological machines. Okay, let me rephrase the question. Do you believe that a biological machine's algorithm (i.e. values and behavior) has any bearing on outcome?
  - confluence 14y ago
    Yes. But you should notice how we don't blame machine no. X for not doing it's job correctly (aka having buggy programs run on it) - it does exactly what it was supposed to do. No - we blame the programmer/hardware manufacturer for screwing things up - which in the case of humans is the environment and genes.
    - Jayschwa 14y ago
      Your reductionist mindset seems to be on a path of destruction, leaving many useful abstractions in its wake. Is a car actually a car, or is it just a collection of atoms? It's both. Does the car actually drive, or is it just physics? It's both - "driving" is a subset of physics that acts on a collection of atoms known as a "car". When people say "luck", they are usually referring to external circumstances not under the influence of the biological machine's algorithm. To say that luck is the only factor, or never a factor, is wrong. Given similar inputs, some algorithms will excel and some will fail. You certainly can "blame" an algorithm for certain outcomes. How the algorithm formed is a red-herring.
      - confluence 14y ago
        > When people say "luck", they are usually referring to external circumstances not under the influence of the biological machine's algorithm Your DNA, aka the algorithm that is who you are, is given to you by the external environment - you have no control over it, and neither do you have any control over your upbringing - rich/poor/race/sex. Your argument is, well, void.
        jessedhillon 14y ago

blackman 14y ago

This is one of the discussed problems of philosophy and it gets a bit complicated when you start on quantum physics and relativity. Some info. http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1210/in-which-way-does-quantum-mechanics-disprove-determinism http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1210/in-which-...

stdbrouw 14y ago
Luck are unexpected good things that happen to you and that you didn't work for. It has little to do with randomness in a physical sense and thus philosophical discussions about determinism aren't really relevant in this context.
- Jayschwa 14y ago
  Look further down the discussion chain. confluence has been telling people to "learn physics" and seems to be equating luck with random chance or determinism.
  - confluence 14y ago
    Luck is merely preferable random chance. I never argued for determinism. I argued for probabilistic determinism.
carlob 14y ago
Still our brain is, for all practical purposes, a classical machine. No quantum effects are observed at the neuron level. So we can't use indeterminism to save free will.

derleth 14y ago

> Yeah - I got really lucky and that's about all there is to the story Meditate on what a philosophy like this, universally held, would do to morality. Personally, I think it would improve it.