So you guys thought I was the ace, huh? Man oh man, I love a good bluff!
Hey fishy, do you know how to play cards? Oh, I guess it would be hard with fins.
“My name is Phhhhhhhhhhhhhnnnv,” it says, drawing itself up. If you’ve never seen a fish with wounded dignity, it’s something. “And I am perfectly capable of playing cards virtually, which I understand is the norm in most human societies.”
Ah. I like the feel of the cards in my hands. But we can make do. I’ll just imagine a holotable. Sorry, it’s a little cramped in here. What’s your game, Go Fish?
“Poker.”
Skarsian hold-em? Crazy javamelon?
“Unembellished poker.”
Apparently Phhhhhhhhhhhhhnnnv is a traditionalist. Who’s in? Tommy? Mickey?
Tommy deals first. I get three aces and two queens.
Mickey deals next. I get four kings.
Phhhhhhhhhhhhhnnnv deals. I get a royal flush.
“You’re cheating,” Phhhhhhhhhhhhhnnnv accuses. “I’ll never win at your psychically constructed table.”
I invite Cillian to take my seat. They play half a dozen hands, until the fish gets a little streak going. Mickey wins twice, Cillian once, and Tommy gets pounded. “It’s not the table,” I say. “It’s me.”
“So you admit that you’re a cheat,” says Phhhhhhhhhhhhhnnnv.
If I were, would there be a problem with that? I thought ethics were irrelevant. If only results count, what’s the problem?
“Well,” says the fish thoughtfully, “I suppose it depends on the circumstances. In most cases, it’s unprofitable to cheat because it causes social disruption inimical to enterprise.”
So you’re saying that if you’re going to cheat, you’d better have a good reason. Is that how the SongLuminants feel?
“I wouldn’t presume to speak for them.”
Yes, says Hurley. They’re basically in agreement with the fish’s logic.
I didn’t cheat, though, unless luck is a form of cheating.
“Luck,” says the fish. “If I understand the concept, luck is a streak of short-term improbability that can be either favorable or unfavorable. Humans put a lot of stock into the concept, which is absurd as eventually the random occurrences will even out, reverting to the expected. The greater the number of trials, the more the phenomenon in question will conform to predicted probability.”
True enough, but then how do you explain that some people are naturally lucky?
“Math is not my specialty, but I would assume that just as individual events, from the draw of a card to the shift of an electron’s energy state, are governed by probability, so are the fates of beings. For example, one person’s life events might cluster fortunately while the next’s cluster unfortunately, but given a large enough population, the quantity of luck will tend to even out.”
So, according to that theory, an extremely lucky person seems to bend the laws of probability only because he or she is taken in isolation? But from that individual’s perspective, that’s irrelevant.
“True enough.”
So, say we’re trying to navigate the probability of getting to a certain event 1456 years in the future, having an extremely lucky person on your side would be helpful?
“No matter how lucky you are, the probabilities against it are astronomical.”
I’m putting all of my chips on it. By the way, the probability of my getting that royal flush was 0.000154%. Whereas the probability of surviving the sentient life sweepstakes is 35.29%. Care to lay your bet?