>>39775776>believe in yourself, not in some fucking cringe luck of the drawI'm sure there are people who legit believe in divination. I put it on the same shelf as meme magic and the GCP dot. All of them sound retarded in themselves, but going by the laws of probability, there might be something to them. And I'm saying this as a mathematician.
One idea that generally everyone in their lives comes in contact with is patterns in ranom sequences. Of course the human brain forcibly tries to find patterns everywhere, so say rolling six sixes with a standard dice, in a row. Each roll is random, and therefor there is nothing special about this case. But as you roll the seventh time, you can be almost certain that it will not be a six. Not because somehow the 1/6 chance changed, but because it's incredibly rare to continuously roll sixes.
Some things that when examined alone are unpredictable can be reasoned about in a large enough dataset. The Law of truly large numbers is one of these. The Central limit theorem is another, although less known.
Now still, divination falls short because it connects wildly different datasets. Pulling a card that symbolizes something happening to you won't magically make it happen, and there is no way that it proactively "divines" it. The part that interests me is: the more low chance events you try to fit into a day, the less likely they are about to happen. For example if a one in a million chance thing happens to me in the morning then I can just about safely rule out the same thing happening in the afternoon. And not only that single one in a million thing, but that any of the sort even happens that same day, or the next few
Of course there still isn't any merit to symbolism, or some higher force helping you divine stuff. It's just how numbers work. Basically I'm talking about applying Expected values to datasets, and seeing what assumptions I can make based on that.
