[MD] Probability

[Case]

> [Platt}
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.

[Case]
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is not a standard for Absolute Truth. It
recognizes that Absolute Truth is impossible to determine and accepts beyond
a reasonable doubt as a standard. 

[Platt]

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?

[Case]
Patiently waiting for you to see the point or to offer up a single example
of an Absolute Truth or even a sketch of an idea for what such a thing would
look like.
 
[Platt]
Well, we're making progress at last!  Absolute certainty does exist 
after all.  In the NOW instant it's absolutely certain you were born. 

[Case]
Maybe it was too much to expect you to actually read what we are talking
about. But in the NOW instant all that is certain it that THIS is happening.
All statements about what happened before this or what will happen next are
probabilistic. The closer to NOW they are the more certainty they have. But
as you move away in time uncertainties compound making prediction of the
future and interpretation of the past problematic.

> [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? 


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

[Case]
Gödel makes a specific argument about the nature of logic in closed
mathematical systems. It is relevant to the idea of uncertainty being
inherent in all things but does not contain the kind of sad contradiction
you seem to be hinting at but have never specified.

[Platt]
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.

[Case]
If I could show that you had said anything of substance in this conversation
I would gladly do so. But I can not.

Thought problems have long been an accepted practice in both philosophy and
science. But they do require some ability to think and process information
and ideas. I can see what this would be difficult for you.

My purpose at this point is to see if your views on any other subject have
more substance than you political positions. And frankly, this has been
disappointing.