Causation and Relationship

What is luck? You see a statistical treatment is needed beyond just simply one which questions the underlying semantics of luck.

Let us assume that we throw a dice a hundred times and then we form a linear regression to formulate the value of the throw. Hence for some apparent reason, the dispersion is so low, which means the dots cluster around the regression- leaving small residual values between the actual value and fitted value, this then means that the linear regression is efficacious or in other words, variance from the line - or the "conclusion" is true and fair. That is the theory of knowledge.

We can throw a million times, a billion times, a hundred billion times, we would still get a different linear regression line, and then we can do a more sophisticated analysis by taking a 100 sample of say 100 throws each and test for the randomness of the test. This means we can test for bias in the throw, we would still get some form of bias regardless what and then we have to account for bias as an coefficient in the linear regression. This means that we are assuming our hands or our mechanical hand that throws the dice has a bias- hence the bias is not in the "luck" but the "hand" or the "machine" that throws it- hence luck is not an "exclusive quality" of a particular person.

Therefore, it would be ridiculous to assume that some people have better luck, worse luck simply because for some apparent reason, the gods favour them. I am looking from a statistical standpoint which means that we "observe" and aggregate observations from our "world" and form an analysis to form a conclusion. Even if you are superstitious person, I am sorry the above has nothing for you- because we cannot test what we cannot see. If you believe as such, you are on your own on this one.

I always say that about ecological fallacy- this means that we mix up the cause and effect. The above is a classic example. You see assuming that we extract a regression line from the above "samples" and we form a line on the graph to predict the values of the throw. As explicate above, this is at best a "relationship" and not a causation- the causation is in the hand or mechanical hand that throws the dice. That is why many people have confuse "correlation" or relationship with causation. This means that line is NOT the cause of the outcome but something else. Therefore, they attempt to fit the "line" to the relationship- which I almost find it laughable, which means that this is an absolute waste of resources.

This means that one throws the dice to fit the line- then you are the problem isn't it. Since you are the bias and it has nothing to do with the world. Assuming that we remove the bias- which is you- and say place a mechanical hand which in theory- which is free of bias- the test of randomness is missed that the hand that throws the dice is the bias, unless we can identify the variable. But we only see the regression line and the methods by which is obtained is missing. And sudden we account it under "e" or error.

I have constantly mentioned about ecological fallacy and the temporal order of cause and effect, and the difference between causation and relationship. It is not just mere intellectual gymnastics but it is grounded in mathematical truth. I only have at best a rudimentary understanding of statistics, and I can tell you for sure that all mathematicians will tell you the same thing. When I say it in words, it is in a language you understand, but when the mathematicians in formulas and equation- it is just plain Greek to you. Ecological fallacy is the same as a very  small "Rsquare"- but you wouldn't know what that means anyway right.

Bringing it back to the previous post where I mentioned not caring about leaving- in similar terms is the same thing. The bias is not me, but the person that throws the hand, no matter how many of times I throw, I will get the same result. The problem is not the world, the problem lies in the person that throws the hand. Hence that is why, I am never worried about leaving this place because the problem is not with me. The problem is in the hand.

Therefore I have never believe in many things that I see, simply because judging from the body language, everyone knows that the problem is not with me reacting in a manner which is not palatable but in a manner which is skewed in a manner which does not attempt to find the "truth" per se, but in presenting a reality by which makes it "believable" to everyone.

This "sense of reality" or verisimilitude is exactly what I say in math above or in phenomenon, I could draw a linear regression and it will concur with my observations, but it is not "truth". The "truth" is fudged. Hence the truth is not the "observed" Phenomenon is not the "truth". There is something else.

I know for sure because that is exactly what I have been trying to do for the last two years. No one will allow me to perform a test of randomness on my observations- guess who have to do it- who else but yourself.

Math and epistemology is not the same. Math is a tool for epistemology and not the other way around. I simply say it in a manner which appears to be "objective", which is numbers- but I always say, "1" or "2", and it is really without "bias" between the two since one is one and two is really two; but how do you get these aggregate values in the first place. Take for example say the equation is say y= 2.1+ 0.3x. How in the how world did get these numbers and observations in the first place, and made you believe that "luck" actually exist. Oops.

Hence I never do get angry with anyone attempting fudge the reality in order to fit the outcome. You see, the joke is on you and not on me. Therefore I leave without regrets. The problem is "you" and not "me".

I am not nice, I am just don't want to bother about a person who believe that y=2.1+0.3 is true that's all. Simply because you believe math is the truth. No one say that math cannot be religion, it is a language with it's methods which I had mentioned earlier. The difference is that when I say: this will cause this, they say it as y=2.1+0.3x. But why, and how- ah, there is something I would like to know myself.

Never comment about the emperor's [ which means anyone who thinks he/she is better than you] new clothes, even if he is laughing at you. You will be screwed and when you believe it, you already screwed.

Goodbye.