Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Axioms" Of Nature
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 1 of 297 (486371)
10-19-2008 12:15 PM


The "Axioms" Of Nature
In the "GOD IS DEAD" thread myself and Bertot have started a conversation that I would like to continue.
In summary: Bertot is making an argument in favour of deductive logic as a valid method for drawing reliable conclusions regarding the physical world.
Based on this method he concludes that a creator is indeed the most reliable answer for cosmological origins.
I am less interested in the conclusion than the methodology. If the methodology is invalid then the conclusions are necessarily unreliable. As such I have set about demonstrating that evidence based investigation necessarily equates to:
(incomplete empirical evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions)
I have then gone on to propose a hypothesis based approach as the solution to this problem of unreliable conclusions.
This can be seen at Message 295
Bertot seems to broadly accept this argument. He has certainly not offered any refutation of this position. However he has claimed that this is irrelevant to his own position as rather than incomplete evidence his own conclusions are based on the "axioms of nature".
Thus Bertot's claim becomes (as I understand it, this would require confirmation from him)
(axiomatic truths of nature)+(valid logic)=(reliable conclusions)
His response to my message can be seen here: Message 301
So what are these "axioms" of nature?. Do they exist? Are they valid?
In Message 303 I write:
Straggler writes:
THE AXIOMATIC TRUTHS OF NATURE
Given that this is the only point of difference between a position that we both seem to agree has been refuted and your own position this would seem to be worthy of some further consideration. Additionally it would seem that if we are able to sufficiently define these axioms we would be potentially able to discover all other truths of nature using reason alone? With no more need for expensive experiments or any of that annoying hypothesis testing.
  • What are these axiomatic truths of nature?
  • On what basis do you claim that these particular axioms are legitimate, objective and genuinely axiomatic?
    Simply stating "it is obvious" is not sufficient as "obviousness" is itself subjective.
    I think these "axiomatic" truths of nature that you are relying upon will amount to little more than subjectively applied common-sense assertions derived from incomplete empirical evidence. In which case the equation:
    (incomplete empirical evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions)
    Describes your position absolutely perfectly after all!!
    However I await your own definition and supporting argument for these "axiomatic" truths of nature.
  • I would like the opportunity to continue this discussion with Bertot. If promoted I would like the validity of different methodologies rather than detailed discussions of specific conclusions to be the main focus.
    In other words this is not about cosmological origins per se it is about methods of making reliable conclusions about the physical world.
    Any conclusions made using methods that can be shown to be invalid will necessarily be deemed unreliable.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 10-20-2008 12:59 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 4 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2008 8:44 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 5 of 297 (486418)
    10-20-2008 8:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Rrhain
    10-20-2008 12:59 AM


    Axioms
    In short, there are no axioms in science. There are only things that we take as axioms simply because we don't know any better. As soon as we do, we'll change them.
    Yup. That is exactly what I had concluded. Any "axioms" in science are the result of incomplete evidence and subject to modification or abandonment in the face of new evidence. Good to have it verified by a mathematician's concept of the term "axiom" though.
    Thus Bertot's argument necessarily reduces to:
    (Incomplete empirical evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions)
    Exactly as I had demonstrated previously.
    I doubt however that Bertot will accept this without a fight so I await his argument in favour of these axioms.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 10-20-2008 12:59 AM Rrhain has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 6 of 297 (486420)
    10-20-2008 9:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by Dawn Bertot
    10-20-2008 8:44 AM


    Re: The "Axioms" Of Nature
    That is fine. As before quality is preferred to rapidity.
    It would be better if we both just reply in this thread rather than the previous one for any continuation of this discussion.
    The first thing we need to establish is whether or not:
    (axiomatic truths of nature)+(valid logic)=(reliable conclusions)
    Is a fair representation of your position (and if not what exactly your position is and exactly what components are included in reaching conclusions using your methodology).

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2008 8:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2008 10:59 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 8 of 297 (486426)
    10-20-2008 1:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
    10-20-2008 10:59 AM


    The "Axioms" Of Reality
    The title of your thread is a bit misleading. It actually should read Axiomatic truths of reality.
    Call them what you will. It matters not.
    Is (axiomatic truths of reality)+(valid logic)=(reliable conclusions) a fair representation of your position or not?
    The questions remain:
  • What are these axiomatic truths of reality?
  • On what basis do you claim that these particular axioms are legitimate, objective and genuinely axiomatic?
    If you want to limit your list of axioms to those required to derive your cosmological origins conclusion that is fine by me also.
    As for your Star Trek example: All that does is demonstrate that in the absence of complete evidence no amount of pure logic will suffice when it comes to drawing conclusions that we can be certain are reliable.
    The only practical way forwards for the captain in your example is to make a reasoned judgement as to the best method of testing which of the logical possibilities is actually true.
    Hypothesis. Testing. Conclusions that have been rendered reliable.
    You are making my argument for me.
    Now back to that list of axioms..................?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2008 10:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2008 1:25 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 13 of 297 (486434)
    10-20-2008 2:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by Dawn Bertot
    10-20-2008 1:25 PM


    Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
    It has been noted that you are either unwilling or unable to state a single one of these "axioms" of reality.
    Until you do so whatever other arguments you put forward are frankly redundant.
    Testing which of the logical possibilites is true is not a response to override the fact that it is axiomatic in character. You need to demonstrate that it has other possibilites, not that he can choose from the only two possibilites. You are side stepping the argument.
    I am side stepping the argument?
    You claim that these "axioms" of reality undeniably exist and that they form the entire basis for your whole methodology.
    Yet you repeatedly fail to present us with a single example of such an "axiom".
    huntard writes:
    While it IS true that those are the only two LOGICAL possibilities, there is a third illogical possibility. They are both willing and capable to respond, yet still don't. Like I said, completely illogical. However, it is a possibility.
    That is one.
    Or the beings in the other ship could have methods of decision making that are totally alien to human beings. Methods that mean that they are both willing and unwilling and able and unable all simultaneously. Methods that are perfectly legitimate and valid by their own forms of "reason".
    If you feel that this breaks one of your "axioms" of reality please state:
  • Which exact axiom of reality has been broken?
  • On what basis it is that you claim that this particular axiom is legitimate, objective and genuinely axiomatic?
    How can you legitimately or consistently base any methods or conclusions on "axioms" that you are unable to state?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2008 1:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 2:29 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 33 of 297 (486476)
    10-21-2008 8:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 26 by Dawn Bertot
    10-21-2008 2:29 AM


    Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
    We are now over 30 posts into a thread setup to examine the "axioms" upon which you claim that your whole methodology for drawing reliable conclusions rests.
    And yet you have still failed to provide a single example of such an "axiom".
    This ongoing failure is making your position look utterly ridiculous.
    Which would mean that thier methods of communication and understnding are so different that it would make it in reality, UNABLE to get a message through, correct?
    No. It means that we need to be able to expand our own methods of reasoning in order to understand their actions. Whether or not this is humanly possible remains to be seen. We will not know until we try. Until we test.
    Reality is as we find it. Not as we deduce it to be on the basis of deductive logic subjectively applied to incomplete evidence.
    Isnt it interesting that not one person can provide one other solution that does not fall within the two categories. Hmmmmm?
    Is it not interesting that you are totally unable to define a single "axiom" of reality despite the whole basis of your argument resting upon such "axioms" both actually existing and being genuinely axiomatic.
    (axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
    Is this a fair representation of your position or not?
    If not, what exactly is your position?
    Unless you can define these "axioms of reality" and the basis on which it can be ensured that they are indeed objective, legitimate and axiomatic you really have no position at all.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 2:29 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 34 by cavediver, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 44 of 297 (486496)
    10-21-2008 1:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 35 by Dawn Bertot
    10-21-2008 9:30 AM


    Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
    Over 40 posts and counting. Still no sign of any axioms.
    (axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
    You have agreed that this is your position.
    In the absence of being able to state a single one of these axioms the weakness of this position is apparent to all.
    Posturing and intimidation by yourself will not let you ignore the fact that axioms exist. In this simple illustration I have provided it should be clear that inability to demonstrate otherwise is indicative of the fact that they are very real.
    Then what are they?
    I have given you an answer to your Star Trek example but you chose to ignore it. Here it is again:
    Straggler writes:
    The beings in the other ship could have methods of decision making that are totally alien to human beings. Methods that mean that they are both willing and unwilling and able and unable all simultaneously. Methods that are perfectly legitimate and valid by their own forms of "reason".
    We need to be able to expand our own methods of reasoning in order to understand their actions and intentions.
    If you feel that this breaks one of your "axioms" of reality please state:
  • Which exact axiom of reality has been broken?
  • On what basis it is that you claim that this particular axiom is legitimate, objective and genuinely axiomatic?
    If you do not state which axiom has been violated by the above answer to your original example I will assume that you are simply unable to do so because no such axioms exist.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 2:03 PM Straggler has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 48 of 297 (486505)
    10-21-2008 3:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Richard Townsend
    10-21-2008 2:52 PM


    Re: Not a good Example
    The Spock is example is weak. Bertot, you are tying yourselves in knots trying to defend into your hypothesis.
    The whole point of Bertot's methodology is to make hypotheses and the associated testing unnecessary when rendering conclusions reliable.
    Instead of the practical and valid form of investigation in the real world, namely:
    (incomplete evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(unreliable conclusion)=(hypothesis)
    Bertot instead asserts that:
    (axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
    Thus, according to him, we need not necessarily undertake any empirical testing of hypothees as we can make reliable conclusions about nature and reality using axioms and reason alone.
    In the absence of these axioms the methodology obviously fails.
    Should Bertot ever actually provide any of these "axioms" I am confident that I will be able to demonstrate these "axioms" to themselves be borne of the subjective interpretation of incomplete empirical evidence.
    Of course if he is unable to even cite what these axioms actually are even this will be unnecessary to discredit his position.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Richard Townsend, posted 10-21-2008 2:52 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 53 by ikabod, posted 10-22-2008 3:18 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 49 of 297 (486506)
    10-21-2008 5:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 34 by cavediver
    10-21-2008 9:30 AM


    Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
    Bertot's position on axioms cannot get any more ridiculous
    I am not sure that we have enough evidence to make that conclusion.
    Lets put it to the test.
    Hypothesis: Bertot's position has yet to reach it's peak of potential ridiculousness.
    Prediction: Bertot's posts within this thread will display increased levels of demonstrably subjective reasoning, greater numbers of assertions will be made on the basis that "it is obvious" or "it is self evident" and Bertot's position will become even more untenable and even more ridciulous than any of us have yet witnessed. Resorting to biblical quotes and references to scripture are a distinct possibility in the face of obvious humiliation.
    Or he might just stop replying.........
    Either way I hope you will agree that reality, and not the subjective application of poor logic to incomplete evidence, will be the judge

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 34 by cavediver, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM cavediver has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 51 of 297 (486511)
    10-21-2008 6:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 50 by 1.61803
    10-21-2008 6:23 PM


    Re: concious perception
    So a axiom of nature could be that "nature will always follow the laws of Chemistry and physics in how reality is manifested in concious perception." Maybe?
    So how does the fact that a clock ticks faster at the top of a mountain than an identical clock does at the bottom of that mountain "manifest in conscious perception"? For example? How do we know what the laws of chemistry and physics actually are? Common sense? Logic? Empirical testing of hypotheses?
    This thread is about the methodology of making reliable conclusions.
    If you think that:
    (axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions) then perhaps you can give us an example of this methodology in action?
    So far Bertot has failed to achieve this so by all means feel free to try.
    Note that no empirical testing is involved in Bertot's methodology. Just "axioms" and logic. If the axioms themselves are empirically derived then Bertot's whole case falls irretrievably apart. As per Message 295
    Now how this corresponds to how Axiom's simplistically describes a accurate description of reality is that maybe the term "close enough for government work." is good enough for some people. If you drop a anvil on your foot, you do not know for a fact that it will break your bones. But the inference you can make is pretty reliable that it will from the axiom: "Big heavy forged iron anvils dropped on soft feet breaks bones in this frame of reference." It either will break your foot or you missed. The truth of the matter is the empiricist have pretty much deflated the gleaning of knowlege of reality based soley on cause and effect. But so what, your still going to need a cast if you drop that anvil on your foot.
    And thus you have agreed upon the necessity of empirically testing conclusions.
    In case you are unaware Bertot's whole position relies on the premise that no such testing is necessary. Either to form axioms or to test conclusions.
    I suggest you read the full thread (and the relevant portions of the thread that this conversation originated in) before commenting further.
    Your empirically tested concept of "close enough" to "axioms" to all practical intents and purposes is quite sensible in all but the use of the term "axiom". In reality if such an "axiom" is found to be untrue it is modified or abandoned. Thus it is not an axiom, but a conclusion subject to possible change. A tentative conclusion of the sort science makes all the time.
    This is very different to the "axioms" Bertot is defending.
    Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by 1.61803, posted 10-21-2008 6:23 PM 1.61803 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 71 by 1.61803, posted 10-22-2008 1:08 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 72 of 297 (486564)
    10-22-2008 1:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 71 by 1.61803
    10-22-2008 1:08 PM


    Re: concious perception
    Back to Axioms, Self evident truth: I can cut a rope into equal lengths and reliablyconclude the other side is equal. I can say that the addition of 1 to any set increases that set by a factor of one. I can realiably conclude these things without testing.
    If you cut a rope into two equal pieces and found everytime that one side was longer than the other would you rely on your dedcutive logic or your empirical experience as to what is actually true?
    How would this example work in an accelerating frame of reference with one "half" of the rope travelling at a different speed to the other?
    I don't disagree that reality can be axiomatic to all practical intents and purposes but where it is this itself is borne of empirical experience.
    With logic alone and no empirical verification of conclusions the "axioms" upon which we base other conclusions are subject to change.
    For example the idea of universal time.
    The difference of time between the two clocks is negligable for all practical purposes in my opinion and therefore moot in regards to how I manage to put my pants on in the morning.
    But "to all practical intents and purposes" are not the "axioms" Bertot is talking about.
    You cannot reliably conclude God created the universe on the basis of "to all practical intensts and purposes" because there are no "practical intents and purposes" that make such extraordinary claims part of everyday experience.
    And those that make such claims rarely accept that such claims are tentative which they must be if genuinely evidence based.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by 1.61803, posted 10-22-2008 1:08 PM 1.61803 has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 73 of 297 (486566)
    10-22-2008 1:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
    10-22-2008 8:10 AM


    Axioms of Reality: What are They?
    70+ posts and counting. Still no signs of a single axiom.
    In attempting to answer every point you have actually failed to adequately answer any. This is a debating tactic. Not a viable position.
    Given that you have unequivocally stated your position to be:
    (axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
    Your ongoing inability to state a single such axiom tells us more about the weakness of your position than anything I could possibly say.
    Even if despite all the evidence you are right about the whole awful Star Trek example what does this tell us about anything other than this specific example? Unless it can be generalised to a universal rule or "axiom"? Nothing at all.
    The beings in the other ship could have methods of decision making that are totally alien to human beings. Methods that mean that they are both willing and unwilling and able and unable all simultaneously. Methods that are perfectly legitimate and valid by their own forms of "reason".
    We need to be able to expand our own methods of reasoning in order to understand their actions and intentions.
    You really dont pay attention do you. OUr abilites have nothing to do with the REALITY that they were unable to GET the message through, FOR WHATEVER REASON.
    Are you saying that reality is limited to that which we are able to understand at any given time?
    If we are potentially able to understand their thinking but we need to relearn how to think to do so how exactly does your example apply?
    This would suggest that whatever concepts we are unable to grasp at any given point in time cannot exist according to you.
    How insanely silly.
    I will ask again:
    If you feel that this answer breaks one of your "axioms" of reality please state:
  • Which exact axiom of reality has been broken?
  • On what basis it is that you claim that this particular axiom is legitimate, objective and genuinely axiomatic?
    If you do not state which axiom has been violated by the above answer to your original example I will assume that you are simply unable to do so because no such axioms exist.
    If no such axioms exist you have no argument and thus no position.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 74 of 297 (486587)
    10-22-2008 6:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 53 by ikabod
    10-22-2008 3:18 AM


    Re: axiom hunting
    As we seem to have a lack of examples of these axioms of nature , and given that this thread is about them , and we have a number of post’ers who seem to be able to use deductive logic , is it thought possible to reverse engineer to reach an axiom?
    i.e. starting from a reliable conclusion , use logic to work back to the necessary axiom .
    If this is possible , can we firstly agree on a number of reliable conclusions?
    anyone ..
    I think the whole point of science is that there are no such things as purely logical reliable conclusions. Our evidence is always incomplete and our conclusions are always tentative to some degree. Untested conclusions are inherently unreliable. If you remove the test component from the whole equation then there is no reliability.
    If we start with the conclusion and work our way back we are actually committing the cardinal sin of evidence based investigation. The sin of preconceived indisputable conclusions. There can be no such thing.
    Whilst I suspect that this is exactly what Bertot is doing, namely creating an unspecified "axiom" to fit each specific predefined situation or conclusion, I have no intention of letting him off the hook by defining his axioms for him. He will just tell us we setting up straw men anyway.
    No. Let him dig himself further into his hole. If he does give an example it will be demonstrably subjective and definitely non-axiomatic. If he continues not to present any examples the weakness of his position will become ever more evident to all.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by ikabod, posted 10-22-2008 3:18 AM ikabod has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 85 of 297 (486630)
    10-23-2008 8:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 78 by Dawn Bertot
    10-23-2008 7:14 AM


    Reality Bites
    Bertot writes:
    Straggler writes:
    don't disagree that reality can be axiomatic to all practical intents and purposes but where it is this itself is borne of empirical experience.
    You are exactly correct, I knew eventually you would start to acknowledge and realize the force of axiomatic truths. Empirical experience and reality are one and the same and are testable to the highest degree, so much so that they can be accepted without fear of contradiction.
    And so your true hand is revealed and your remaining position, such as it is, really does come tumbling down.
    If these "axioms" of which you speak are derived from empirical experience then they are by definition (of the quite evident fact that you are not omniscient) derived from incomplete evidence.
    Without omniscience how can you know that reality will always behave as you have experienced it thus far? Without omniscience how can you know how much empirical evidence you require to reliably conclude that your experiences are universally and axiomatically true?
    You cannot.
    So we can conclude that your so called "axioms" are in fact a combination of your incomplete empirical experiences with some extrapolation added in the form of deductive logic. Thus:
    (axioms of reality)=(incomplete evidence)+(deductive logic)
    If we feed this back into your unequivocally stated position:
    (axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
    Then we get:
    (incomplete evidence)+(deductive logic)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
    This is obviously identical to:
    (incomplete evidence)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
    However this position has already been refuted in terms of drawing reliable conclusions. We therefore know that this necessarily becomes:
    (incomplete evidence)+(deductive logic)=(unreliable conclusions)
    The full reasoning for this can seen here Message 295 where we can see that the only practical response to the problem of incomplete evidence is a hypothesis based approach. Deductive logic alone is an insufficient means of drawing reliable conclusions about the nature of reality as applied to incomplete evidence.
    Bertot has actually agreed to this. He just did not realize that his "axioms" of reality assertions amounted to exactly the same thing.
    And thus we are back where we started.
    Unless you are able to demonstrate why it is that the "axioms" of yours are anything other than the result of incomplete empirical evidence then I am afraid that the original refutation of your position remains your downfall.
    You lose.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-23-2008 7:14 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 88 of 297 (486648)
    10-23-2008 11:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 86 by Huntard
    10-23-2008 9:47 AM


    Woooohoooo!!!!
    You actually AGREE that ANYONE has a 50% chance of winning the lottery? wow....just wow....
    So if I buy two tickets I am guaranteed a jackpot!!! Woooohooooo!!!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by Huntard, posted 10-23-2008 9:47 AM Huntard has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-23-2008 12:17 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 91 by ICANT, posted 10-23-2008 12:46 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024