[MD] Probability

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt}
> I'm sure you're familiar with perjury.
> 
> [Case]
> Yes, and it has nothing to do with Absolute Truth.

Either you or Gene brought up the example of truth as established by a 
jury "beyond a reasonable doubt." So its disingenuous to say what 
happens in court is irrelevant.

> [Platt]
> > Science is a method for testing ideas and validating observation
> > against theory. It does not recognize or seek after Absolute Truth.
> 
> [Platt]
> That's absolutely true. You've made my point, again..
> 
> [Case]
> What point? As far as I can tell you have failed made no attempt to make
> one.

The point we've been debating --whether or not we can be absolutely 
certain about anything.  I say yes, you say no. Where have you been?
 
> [Platt]
> I'll take your word for it. But I'm not sure it's an absolute truth 
> like many truths of the history, such as your birth. 
> 
> [Case]
> Again you show no understanding of the problem. If you will read my
> original post in this thread you will see that absolute certainty does
> not exist anywhere but in the NOW instant. It can not exist in the
> present and it can not exist in the past.  

Well, we're making progress at last!  Absolute certainty does exist 
after all.  In the NOW instant it's absolutely certain you were born. 

> [Platt
> Gödel gave us an absolute truth about logical systems being unable to
> prove their own validity. A good example of what I've been talking
> about.
> 
> [Case]
> And what is that? 

That we can be absolutely certain about something. When did you lose 
track of the basic argument?

> > [Platt]
> I have answered what you've been saying, point by point. I'm sorry you
> don't like the answers. It seems what you consider to be true is an 
> absolute in your mind and will tolerate no other viewpoints. Finally,
> agreement among three (you, Gene, Arlo) or three million doesn't
> establish truth.  
> 
> [Case]
> You have outlined no position whatsoever. You seem to think there is a
> paradox or some sort here although you have not said exactly what it is.
> What the three of us did was not necessarily agree but show that we
> understood what the problem is. You have not.

Your saying so doesn't make it so. You should at least show some 
evidence that I "have outlined no position whatsoever" and that you 
three have shown "what the problem is."  To assert that a brain in the 
vat fairy tale somehow shows the problem is like me claiming that a 
time machine that takes me back to when I accidentally kill by great 
grandfather presents a problem. Both are ersatz problems. An example of 
a  real problem is how to defeat the dark forces of collectivist 
totalitarianism  such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Quada who threaten 
individual liberty. But that's for another thread.