DHA's Wager

Sorry, first this is evidence. A test has been set up with either result (Q) or result (T). Second, what it proves is that the concept that result (Q) would happen under those circumstances was invalid. These are examples of misdirection and attempted strawman arguments. A sandpile is not an object but a loose group of objects, and to assume that you have two such that can meet a condition of identity, where one {A} is equal to the other {A} in regards to the level concerned, as well as being identical to the final pile shows a disregard for the concept of equality as most people use it. You do not end up with a "pile" that is the equal of either starting "pile". If you make it one ton of sand plus one ton of sand, you will end up with two tons of sand no matter how you pile on the ground.And an infinity of {objects} is not an {object} either, but a concept, just a bigger sandpile.You know the argument and keep dodging around it (and I assume on purpose): You don't need to know what {A} is to judge the validity of the mathematical concept of 1 plus 1 is 2.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

actually the Rex is in the raptor family, and this is the branch that birds most likely descended from (albeit from smaller relatives)... but what we are dealing with here (in both your and Rrhains posts) are examples of null results of tests: observations. evidence.when it comes to a creature like the T.Rex you can set up a test where you look in all the possible places (habitats) over continuous periods of time where such a creature could live, and when it is not observed in those places and times, then you can say that it was not existing in those times and places. The extent that you can cover the globe with such a study and come up empty, is not an absence of evidence however: all those observations and compilation of contiguous records are evidence.compare this to the evidence for the absence of the ivory billed woodpecker ... which is listed as "probably extinct" in my birdbook, even though it has not been sighted for some 25 years. why? because not all the possible habitats have been eliminated by such a study as listed above.in fact if you look at reports of likely extinction of species that have existed recently you usually see reference to "last sighted {on\at} ..." as a tacit understanding that extinction has not been verified beyond all doubt.oh btw -- Parasomnium has your goat ...enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

chartreuse. not sepia, that would clash with the pink.

to say nothing about how the various measurements of time are prone to errors due to real interactions with{{{the fabric of space}}}
... or in more common terms, relativity.{edited to fix lost text in brackets}This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*18*2005 08:27 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

was it really an hour? as long as the fabric is fuschia and chartreuse 'branes all is well.no mo pic?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

only if he wore the proper boots when the platforms went by the train.

Rrhain continues to equivocate.I misplaced my keys. I searched the entire apartment, my car and where I work, and found no keys. To Rrhain this is not {evidence of absence} of the keys, but an {absence of evidence} for the keys: to his logic they no longer exist.Based on my {evidence of absence} of the keys in those locations I look elsewhere, and they turn up at the grocery store. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.All {A} is {B} does not mean that all {B} is {A} (it's only true when {A} = {B})All specific instances use definite objects to make the point, and then the general condition is extrapolated from that.Thus 1{A} plus 1{A} = 2{A} is first defined at 1 {apple} plus 1 {apple} = 2 {apples} then generalized. It matters not what the definition of {A} is because this is the same as saying 1 + 1 = 2 -- the idealized generalization of the specific case. The {A} needs no more definition that the {1} needs. This is elementary maths.Likewise the statement{Absent proof of the existence of {A} one cannot say that {A} exists} is a logical statement regardless of the definition of {A}And{Absent proof of the non-existence of {A} one cannot say that {A} does not exist} is an equally logical statement.And neither depends on the definition of what {A} is: it is a generalized condition.Putting these together: Rrhain would have us believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that all {A} is {B} means that all {B} is {A} regardless of the definition of {A} or {B} but that {A} needs to be defined for the boxed statements above. In this he is plainly wrong on both counts.Pursuing further discussion on this topic without acknowledgement of these basic errors is futile.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

sorry.I picked keys because it should be obvious to anyone that their non-existence due to an {"absence of evidence is evidence of absence" logical fallacy} would be just plain ludicrous.Perhaps this is a problem with trying to reduce an already simple concept to such a basic level that a child can understand it but still finding that an obstinate adult can't (or won't)?This UFO example doesn't fly at all as I am not ascerting that UFO's exist, what I am saying is that absent proof that they don't exist you cannot logically say they don't exist, AND that absent proof that they do exist you cannot logically say that they do.The concept is simple in the first place, and shouldn't need to be {simplified\clarified\defined\etcetera} to be understood: I trust that sometime soon someone may actually answer the very simple question above, but until that actually happens I see no need to answer further nonsense that does not address the question.This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*28*2005 07:35 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

that is implicit in the equaly weighty {we cannot say "there are UFO's"} isn't it?on all such items so definedincluding dark matter and energy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

you mistake yourself. I was not replying to you, that seems pretty pointless due to your continued equivocation. You refuse to answer the question and keep dancing around it with side issues. The answer is simple, whether you have a math degree or not.I await your answer to the question. Anything else is equivocation.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You refuse to answer the question and keep dancing around it with side issues. The answer is simple, whether you have a math degree or not.I await your answer to the question. Anything else is equivocation.Enjoy.{added yellow for emPHASis}This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*02*2005 10:00 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}