This is actually something I love talking about and want to talk about it at length, but I am just done typing tonight.

But when it comes up again, I want to ask about how you’re defining your failure states. You can only run statistical analyses like that on falsifiable variables, so variables with a win and fail condition.

Identifying a bunch of coincidences would be mathematically significant if you determined that there were significantly too few failures within those “trials.”

But I am not convinced you guys are measuring these coincidences as successes and failures and finding mathematical significances. Rather, you’re generalizing your wins by identifying multiple wins for a single variable (such as “watch the water” being zealously applied to everything) and not keeping track of your failures.

Without knowing how many times you could have failed, you can’t possible know whether your successes are above average. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be done.

In other words, I can flip a coin a hundred times and say that getting 99 heads is not a coincidence.

But I can’t walk randomly around the city for a week and say that I found 99 coins heads-up in the street and that’s impossible. I’m not measuring the number of heads-up coins I found against anything. I’m just saying it’s really weird that I found so many. No math can be done on this.

Like I said, this is probably my last post tonight, but I am interested in your thoughts if it comes up again.

This is actually something I love talking about and want to talk about it at length, but I am just done typing tonight.

But when it comes up again, I want to ask about how you’re defining your failure states. You can only run statistical analyses like that on falsifiable variables, so variables with a win and fail condition.

Identifying a bunch of coincidences would be mathematically significant if you determined that there were significantly too few failures within those “trials.”

But I am not convinced you guys are measuring these coincidences as successes and failures and finding mathematical significances. Rather, you’re identifying multiple wins for a single variable (such as “watch the water” being zealously applied to everything) and not keeping track of your failures.

Without knowing how many times you could have failed, you can’t possible know whether your successes are above average. Therefore, no statistical analysis can be done.

In other words, I can flip a coin a hundred times and say that getting 99 heads is not a coincidence.

But I can’t walk randomly around the city for a week and say that I found 99 coins heads-up in the street and that’s impossible. I’m not measuring the number of heads-up coins I found against anything. I’m just saying it’s really weird that I found so many. No math can be done on this.

Like I said, this is probably my last post tonight, but I am interested in your thoughts if it comes up again.