[MD] Probability

[Platt Holden]

> [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. 

Another example of an absolute truth -- "Absolute truth is impossible 
to determine."

 [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.

I have given dozens of examples of absolute truths that you yourself 
have asserted, like "Absolute Truth is impossible to determine." 

> [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.

How do you are know "this is happening" now if, as you have stated, you are
not certain you are conscious? 

> > [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.

Do you not understand logical self-contradiction?

> [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.

What do you mean "of substance?"

> 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.

To say I'm disappointed in your reasoning would be an understatement. But
even more disappointing is your refusal, or inability, to answer my questions.