During my search for the truth, I have become more sensitive for certain matters. I was always a science/logic/proof guy, with the idea that you could ‘explain’ everything. I studied Physics and Mathematics, just because I was better with numbers and logic than with language and culture. And because of this background I tried to put the world inside my frame of knowledge, the frame being numbers and formula’s. No problem, everybody does this. I’m just normal;)
Anyway, somewhere back in my head (or was it my heart) there were other forces which pointed to a non-science side of things. I always knew this but first I had to reach the ‘limits of science’ to be able to start to accept that other side.
One of the curious things about hard science is the ‘battle’ with the extremely puzzling nature of Quantum Physics. Puzzling, because Quantum Physics is very difficult to understand for the brain. Quantum Physics turns things upside down and redirects everything back to YOU, the ‘Observer’. And there seems no way around this. Quantum Physics is very difficult to put ‘in a box’. Schrödinger tried to put his cat in a box. But as we know, ‘curiosity’ killed the cat:)
But the thing that really stupefied me was an article called Is the moon there when nobody looks? (Reality and the quantum theory) … To me this was ‘not done’. Because I started with university to learn how things worked, not to learn that this is impossible. You can’t even be sure of the Moon? … Damn, it was such a ‘shock’ for me that I just laughed it away.
But, you know, it kept being intriguing. And give it 20 more years, with Reality helping you to give in a bit, and things start to fall in place, like a puzzle. Fun things, not too hard stuff. One of those things was ‘luck’. I started to think about ‘luck’. Now what is ‘luck’ exactly? Or another word, ‘coincidence’. What is that exactly?
If you want to get a real hard scientific grip on luck or coincidence you have to have a ‘formula’. A theory and a proof. A ‘repeatable’ process to proof the theory. In order so that we can decide by definition that:
Happening A is luck
Happening B is not-luck
But … I don’t know of any existing theory, or ‘formula of luck’. Is there a definition? And if so, where does luck stop and non-luck start? Let’s see:
Suppose you lost your car keys …
A. You know they must be in your home. You find them … we call this ‘normal’ or non-luck
B. You had them when you arrived from work (your car is in front of your home). They are not in your home, but in the end you find them just outside your door. Probably fallen out of your pocket when you entered the house … we call this still ‘normal’ non-luck
C. Take B, but with the addition that you walked to the shops nearby and returned home. You can’t find your keys in your home, nor near the car. You decide to walk again the route to the shops and … damn, there you see your keys, just outside the baker shop … we call this? … Well you start to be lucky:)
D. Take C but even with walking/searching back and forth to the shops. No keys. In the evening the neighbour rings at your door. Are these your keys? Yessss! How/where did you find them? The neighbour tells he found them on the street, not knowing the owner. He wanted to bring them to the police but heard your daughter talking to his daughter that her daddy (you) was in a bad mood because he had lost his car keys. The neighbour did put 1 and 1 together and presto … You have your keys back … Now, my dear readers. This surely IS luck:)
But where exactly does non-luck stop and luck start? Somewhere between B and C perhaps. But by what definition? Or in other words, ‘what is the formula of luck?’
You see, when I, with all my logic background, started to think about these things, I couldn’t find an answer, but luck and non-luck still floated around like always. I had good lucky days, ‘normal’ non-lucky days and even bad unlucky days, but there was no formula involved. The idea that ‘no formulas were needed’ gained ground and I became more soft. Add to this my now 10 year active ‘search’ and my gradual ‘acceptance’ of the non-science side and I simply had to leave the path of putting everything in boxes, finding fomula’s for everything. Trying to arrange everything. Seeing ‘Reality’ as work, work to be done because Reality ‘has to be fixed’ (as if God slipped up and I was needed to help him out … lol;)
I became more sensitive for luck, coincidence, etc. and started to see these happenings as little ‘gifts’. And ‘the formula of luck’? … I had to conclude that the only real solution to luck/non-luck is that it simply does NOT exist for real. luck/non-luck only exists in your mind. ‘It’ happens, and sometimes we call that luck;)