The logical case for ‘luck’

‘Luck’ is often a rather blasphemous term to use in a quasi-philosophical discussion and is, as such, disregarded as entirely insignificant by most when recounting the factors governing human life. In fact, some times the derision amounts to an utter denial of it’s very existence. I personally believe that such an attitude is a sad error which deems to regard something that has come down the conventional wisdom and nomenclature as being wrong for these very qualifications; whereas a true measure would be to judge it rationally against a valid argument to affirm or reject it.
A number of events, being causal outcomes of other events, will inevitably collide at multiple instances, giving birth to other causal outcomes which are a result of the very collisions – a shared outcome, if you may, which may not be originally designed to procure by either of the causing events individually. Any sufficiently randomized causal system will then inevitably go down that path. Luck, keeping with the jargon of this writing, will then merely be one such incidental outcome, profiting one or many by sheer ‘chance’ (or the contrary).
This, then clearly establishes a place for ‘luck’, or ‘chance’, whatever way you’d have it as, and a role for it in human life. Whereas disregarding it may be fulfiling for an ardent believer of free will, that would be well removed from reality.
As far as the case for free will is concerned, it is quite obvious that this agency has it’s limitations. Particularly, when one can’t adequately determine the cause and effect of an instant, being disturbed by the aforementioned phenomenon, free will breaks down. I shall cite an example to make my point clear:
Let’s say you shoot an arrow and that you’re an exceptionally good at it. The arrow is bound straight for a tree shall no external event interfere. But ‘as luck would have it’, a bird flies right into it’s way and faces a rather unpleasant outcome. In this case, the bird was to continue its flight while the arrow was to strike the tree; but since both collided, the outcomes of both events were disturbed and gave birth to an unanticipated new outcome.
This, then, is luck. I know it’s a fairly obvious phenomenon and could be very easily reasoned and reached. But some ardent rationalists, or so they claim to be, tend to consider luck something of a nuisance when it comes down to arguing free will. And that, in turn, leads them to make fairly ridiculous and invalid remarks about it. This is just a quick rejoinder to such fellows.