I've got no Luck...

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Does anyone have any thoughts; anyone want to attempt a refutation? I know, its sad, I'm just tying to pick a fight at this point, but I have to do something.

... sorry. I'd love to oblige you (was just in the mood too!) that'd be disingenuous.
:nonooo:

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

I say this, because there is no such thing as luck or chance or randomness. Events either occur or they do not; the events that did not occur never had the potential to occur. The subjunctive is obsolete. Potentiality and all the aforementioned terms are the result of our incomplete understanding. Where we cannot predict an event, we posit chance. To disagree with this, it seems to me that one would have to refute the following statement, which I oft repeat: "The world is a certain way and not another; the world proceeds in a certain way and not another; the world is the world and not another world." How can this be refuted?

Does anyone have any thoughts; anyone want to attempt a refutation? I know, its sad, I'm just tying to pick a fight at this point, but I have to do something. I see people constantly bringing up chance in philosophical and scientific discussions, as if it were a causal factor!

First i would like to say that I've never even challenged the idea of luck. Thanks for bringing this topic to discussion.

I'm absolutely in agreement with your assessment on luck. Either something happens or it doesn't.

I guess people use the word luck to describe something good happening to them that they wanted and possibly didn't think it would happen. So maybe the word luck should be used to describe a persons excitement. Going from no hope to pleasure.

At least thats my take on what luck might represent.

@Joe,

" I had a lot luck but it all been bad, no matter how I struggle and strive, I'll never get out of this world alive," Hank Williams:lol:

@BrightNoon,

Luck is apparently like the rushing,apace wind,which transpire fortuitously,arbitrarily.Nature depends on luck.BrightNoon,your perspective is indeed intuitive to read.

@BrightNoon,

Brightnoon,

If you say that there is no such thing as randomness, how can you say that events either occur or not. This seems random to me. Logically, two variables (events are and events aren't) make for four distinct possibilities. Like I said, there is some implication of randomness in what you say. So this seems contradictory.

But you basically boil everything down to the statement and ask how it can be refuted;

BrightNoon wrote:

"The world is a certain way and not another; the world proceeds in a certain way and not another; the world is the world and not another world." How can this be refuted?

Looking at your particular statement, it seems to me that you imply some definitity or manner of pre-destination. There may in fact be one world? but we really do not know that for sure. For one fact, you do not take into account relativity. That "the world is a certain way and not another" implies that there is one world. Relatively, that is not the case. I see the world in a different way than you do, figuratively and metaphysically. Do we each see the same world? Maybe, but that is debatable. That the world is the world is a Cartesian headache? I would warn against treading there.

On the whole, your thoughts sound very similar to Leibniz and the conception of the external world. Spinoza for example would say there is one possible world, where as Leibniz would say that there are many possible worlds? many monads. But what makes our world the world it is because it is "the best possible world." In essence, many possibilities but a selection of this world that we live in as the best possible world in which we perceive. I do not subscribe to this theory, but it is interesting none the less. But all "modern" philosophers have some conception of what you are driving at, from Descartes to Hume.

So, applying this theory to your statement, cannot the worlds that "are not," be incorporated into the world that "is?" Simply, can we be living in the best possible world and still have the contingent worlds?. which may contain this "randomness."

Personally and on a different note, I have always thought that luck is something for people who are unprepared and need some sort of divine intervention to make things go the way they want them to. For the students? "luck" is another term for "I have not studied?please?please?give me easy questions on my exam."

@VideCorSpoon,

For the sake of this conversation, what is "luck"?

@VideCorSpoon,

If you say that there is no such thing as randomness, how can you say that events either occur or not. This seems random to me.

That was a manner of speaking; you must blame english, not me. I think I clarified later, but let me rephrase now. By 'events either occur or not' I meant, 'events that occur occur and events that do not occur do not. I did not mean to imply that there are events which may or may not occur. Events that do not occur are not events; this is just a grammatial neccessity. We cannot refer to nothing without implying that it is a thing which exists. I hope that was illuminating; this a delicate verbal dance.

But you basically boil everything down to the statement and ask how it can be refuted; Looking at your particular statement, it seems to me that you imply some definitity or manner of pre-destination. There may in fact be one world? but we really do not know that for sure. For one fact, you do not take into account relativity. That "the world is a certain way and not another" implies that there is one world. Relatively, that is not the case. I see the world in a different way than you do, figuratively and metaphysically. Do we each see the same world? Maybe, but that is debatable. That the world is the world is a Cartesian headache? I would warn against treading there.

On the whole, your thoughts sound very similar to Leibniz and the conception of the external world. Spinoza for example would say there is one possible world, where as Leibniz would say that there are many possible worlds? many monads. But what makes our world the world it is because it is "the best possible world." In essence, many possibilities but a selection of this world that we live in as the best possible world in which we perceive. I do not subscribe to this theory, but it is interesting none the less. But all "modern" philosophers have some conception of what you are driving at, from Descartes to Hume.

I do not beleive in the external world, except as that outside of consiousness, which may exist, but about which nothing at all can be known; by definition it is unintelligable. When I speak of the world, I refer usually to the experiened, individual world. In this particular case, my reference could be to either, the individual or the external. How can I make a statement about the external world when I have said that it is unintelligable? What is the statement I am actually making; that it exists as it does and not as it does not. How could that not be the case? I make no other claims. In this way I have bypassed the problem of cartesian duality. Either way, the world I am talking about is unified, whether as an individual's world or the purely specultaive external world, about which nothing can be known exept the self-evident, neccessarily, tautalogially true statement that I make. And, again, randomness in this world does not exist. When an event occurs, assuming that something else ould have happened is absurd; what would be the basis of such an assumtion; what does 'could' even mean? It is nothing but a means of expressions, very useful, by which we explain our understanding of the world, or lack thereof.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

That was a manner of speaking; you must blame english, not me. I think I clarified later, but let me rephrase now. By 'events either occur or not' I meant, 'events that occur occur and events that do not occur do not. I did not mean to imply that there are events which may or may not occur. Events that do not occur are not events; this is just a grammatial neccessity. We cannot refer to nothing without implying that it is a thing which exists. I hope that was illuminating; this a delicate verbal dance.

So you wouldn't just want to say that events occur? I would think that if something does not occur, that means that something should have occurred in the first place. That "Events that do not occur are not events" I agree with. I have a problem with the provision though since it is an implicative statement.

BrightNoon wrote:

I do not beleive in the external world, except as that outside of consiousness, which may exist, but about which nothing at all can be known; by definition it is unintelligable. When I speak of the world, I refer usually to the experiened, individual world. In this particular case, my reference could be to either, the individual or the external. How can I make a statement about the external world when I have said that it is unintelligable? What is the statement I am actually making; that it exists as it does and not as it does not. How could that not be the case? I make no other claims. In this way I have bypassed the problem of cartesian duality. Either way, the world I am talking about is unified, whether as an individual's world or the purely specultaive external world, about which nothing can be known exept the self-evident, neccessarily, tautalogially true statement that I make. And, again, randomness in this world does not exist. When an event occurs, assuming that something else ould have happened is absurd; what would be the basis of such an assumtion; what does 'could' even mean? It is nothing but a means of expressions, very useful, by which we explain our understanding of the world, or lack thereof.

Your thoughts on the external world are interesting. That you do not believe in the external world except for consciousness which may exist is fine. This seems like a Cartesian belief up to the second meditation. But I do not understand why you would say that, "?about which nothing at all can be known." Even Descartes provided that beyond universal doubt, the mind and extension are known. "By definition it is unintelligible" does not seem right in this context. Intelligibility stipulated as a possibility in consciousness yet is by definition unintelligible???? I don't follow.

But it's interesting that you immediately posit an empirical view. Empiricists generally hold, from Locke onwards, that there are "corporeal ideas" such as "color, weight, etc. which substantiate extension and existence of the world. There is a problem then when you state a rationalist and empirical view. Can one have knowledge a-priori and a-posteriori??? I don't follow.

Honestly, some of your statement is epideictic. Take the statement "that it exists as it does and not as it does not." Truth functional wise, you basically state E & ~~E. simply, E & E by double negating the second premise. I'm not sure how this supports your position. If anything, it reveals a tautological statement without any basis. That you acknowledge this is puzzling. Further, this does not bypass the problem with Cartesian duality?. which is essentially mind/body interaction. And by what has been said, it does not follow that randomness does not exist. The external world which we seem to have slipped into conversation with is a problem, albeit a side problem to the notion of randomness.

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

For the sake of this conversation, what is "luck"?

:sarcastic:
Joe,
Luck is how you discribe the sucess of people you do not like, it is not something earn, fate just blew their way.

@boagie,

Your thoughts on the external world are interesting. That you do not believe in the external world except for consciousness which may exist is fine.

Unfortunately, there has been a misunderstanding; I punctuated in a confusing way.

I said, "I do not believe in the external world, except as that outside of consciousness, which may exist, but about which nothing at all can be known; by definition it is unintelligible."

I meant, "I do not believe in the external world, a world outside of consciousness. Such an external world may exist, but it is purely speculative; it is unintelligible because by definition it would be outside our organized interpretation of reality; it would be undefined, unquantified, uncategorized, etc.

Assuming that such a world does exist, it is a single world, which exists in a certain manner and not in another. Despite the inability to describe this world, we can assume that it has a nature, whatever that might be. All that exists has a certain character: A=A, A≠B. To believe in potentiality is to assume that A could be something other than A. That is nonsensical, meaningless.

@BrightNoon,

This idea of the world is one way and not the other, reminds me of the movie Slackers. Right in the beginning with that dude talking about his dreams are really just a glimpse into another reality that spawned when he decided not to do something. Like if you come to a fork in the road and you take a right. Theres another reality that where instead you took a left, and this happens whenever you choose not to do something, meaning there is a spider web effect of realities being created by you. Or maybe your just a part of that web. Anyways its a good movie.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;28832 wrote:

I say this, because there is no such thing as luck or chance or randomness. Events either occur or they do not; the events that did not occur never had the potential to occur. The subjunctive is obsolete. Potentiality and all the aforementioned terms are the result of our incomplete understanding. Where we cannot predict an event, we posit chance. To disagree with this, it seems to me that one would have to refute the following statement, which I oft repeat: "The world is a certain way and not another; the world proceeds in a certain way and not another; the world is the world and not another world." How can this be refuted?

Does anyone have any thoughts; anyone want to attempt a refutation? I know, its sad, I'm just tying to pick a fight at this point, but I have to do something. I see people constantly bringing up chance in philosophical and scientific disussions, as if it were a causal factor!

We create our tomorrows from the thoughts we entertain.

If your internal dialogue says that you never win, then you will never win. If you want to win, then change your internal dialogue NOW!

Practise thinking more about what you want and less about what you don't want.

Try this affirmation.

"I live in a world of abundance. I may not have everything I want but I do have everything I need to live a happy, comfortable life. I deserve the very best of everything this world has to offer."

Don't expect miracles. It takes time for Mind to figure out what you are playing at.

@Rose phil,

What happened just now
[*] is a result of a trillion variables; force, causality, inertia, decay, emotion, reaction, combustion, oxidization, etc., etc., etc.. In all likelyhood, I don't know but just a few of the reasons but I believe they exist nonetheless.

To say that because I don't know all the variables in "the equation" is not to say they don't exist. Because I don't know why <that> happened doesn't mean there's not a reason.

I believe that when the human mind comes upon something it doesn't understand, it makes up stuff. Lady Luck, Fate, Karma, The Gods, Luck, God's Will, Angry Spirits, Force of the Universe, Binding Energies of Space and Time, Bill the Super Cat and similar explanations all constitute the types of things we invent to explain that which we don't understand.

As far as the meaning of the word goes, I choose to use it in just that light: What something is attributable to when I don't have sufficient explanation.

I hope this contributes to the discussion here.

Cheers!

----

[*] My wife just walked in, came over to my desk and kissed my forehead. She rocks!

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

I say this, because there is no such thing as luck or chance or randomness. Events either occur or they do not; the events that did not occur never had the potential to occur. The subjunctive is obsolete. Potentiality and all the aforementioned terms are the result of our incomplete understanding. Where we cannot predict an event, we posit chance. To disagree with this, it seems to me that one would have to refute the following statement, which I oft repeat: "The world is a certain way and not another; the world proceeds in a certain way and not another; the world is the world and not another world." How can this be refuted?

Does anyone have any thoughts; anyone want to attempt a refutation? I know, its sad, I'm just tying to pick a fight at this point, but I have to do something. I see people constantly bringing up chance in philosophical and scientific disussions, as if it were a causal factor!

"There is no need to think of design or purpose or directedness. If a group of atoms in the presence of energy falls into a stable pattern it will tend to stay that way. The earliest form of natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones. There is no mystery about this. It had to happen by definition."
"The Selfish Gene" Richard Dawkins

Thought this might have some usefulness on the subject.

@BrightNoon,

I agree that 'luck' doesn't really exist in the way that many people seem to beleive it does, however I disagree with your idea that there was no potential for anything else to happen, because surely this would mean there is only one future possibility, which would mean that time is just a set of pre-determined sequences. Wouldn't it? I personally define 'luck' as the favorable occurence of a low-probabilty event. I could probably define this better if I could be bothered to read through an entire dictionary, but for the time being, this is the best way I can convey it. I suppose that 'luck' could also be defined as a phsycological state, where a person believes that favorable occurences are cropping up simply due to the fact that the occurences are favorable.

I don't know if I'm conveying these ideas very well, anyone agree with me?

@bk-thinkaboom,

bk-thinkaboom wrote:

however I disagree with your idea that there was no potential for anything else to happen, because surely this would mean there is only one future possibility, which would mean that time is just a set of pre-determined sequences. Wouldn't it?

I dint think anyone here is saying that there is no potential for different occurrences. But im not exactly sure what that implies. If your talking about a string of related events? Potential for something to happen is there whether you say it is or not. I think what I was agreeing with was that, at the point in time that something does happen, There is nothing else on the subject of luck. But of course there are infinite possibilities for different events. Everything has a potential for motion.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

I say this, because there is no such thing as luck or chance or randomness. Events either occur or they do not; the events that did not occur never had the potential to occur. The subjunctive is obsolete. Potentiality and all the aforementioned terms are the result of our incomplete understanding. Where we cannot predict an event, we posit chance. To disagree with this, it seems to me that one would have to refute the following statement, which I oft repeat: "The world is a certain way and not another; the world proceeds in a certain way and not another; the world is the world and not another world." How can this be refuted?

Does anyone have any thoughts; anyone want to attempt a refutation? I know, its sad, I'm just tying to pick a fight at this point, but I have to do something. I see people constantly bringing up chance in philosophical and scientific disussions, as if it were a causal factor!

I have to say, I enjoy this. I, myself, am quite the fatalist (though I would never admit it to myself. Or did I just do that? :whistling:).

The problem with this position is that it can greatly change your view of morality. If something is to be considered "wrong" it must be considered such so that you remember that nothing else could have taken place. How, then, is it "wrong" to do anything?

I would argue that your ethics must be built in such a way as to account for both the fatality of events and the morality of certain "choices". While events always occur as they occur, that occurrence is unknown to man. Therefore, man does what man "wants", and by that want man is held responsible for his actions, though said actions could not have been different, it is apparently not so to the man.

@invulnerable23,

invulnerable23 wrote:

... If something is to be considered "wrong" it must be considered such so that you remember that nothing else could have taken place. How, then, is it "wrong" to do anything?

Hey Invulnerable,

May I interject? This caught my attention. Very interesting view, so we structure the best estimates of our 'reality' in such a way as to make it fit a moral concept?

Another way to put the question might be better stated as: Whether or not we act - or do wrong - based on whatever circumstances existed to bring us here is still our responsibility. But we're mixing apples and oranges here...

... what we're concerned with in this discussion (at least in my impression) is not so much whether or not we have control over our actions/reactions to <anything> so much as it is whether or not causality or some notion of "random chance" is behind the events in our world. Both concepts are concerned with action and reaction; but that's about as far as it goes.

Hope this contributes well.

@Khethil,

Oh, I understand the purpose of the discussion, Khethil. Smile

I just think it's important that implications of a statement are explored. People often say things without looking at the implications of their statements, and sometimes those statements lead to conclusions that the person didn't intend.

I know what you're saying. This thread is not so concerned with the human aspect of it as much as the idea of luck or chance as compared to the events that happen. I suppose you would call it link one in the chain of events. But, I think that any notion of luck or randomness carries with it the apparent binding or freedom of free will, respectively.

It's important to speak of ethics when you speak of the causality of events. Were the Jews just unlucky when the Holocaust happened?

Philosophy Forum

I've got no Luck...

Quick Links

My Account

able2know