Laura said:Send me the agreed upon correction in an email, and exactly what it is supposed to replace so I can get it done efficiently.
Laura said:Thanks. Change has been implemented by Mr. Scott!
ROEL said:Under 2.5. close to the end of the first paragraph: "In this context, we recognize that given tacit acceptance to..."
Should it be "giving" instead of "given"?
Under 1.0. in the Abstract, "Recognition of that which is Good and which is Evil requires a sufficient..."
Here I could well read "of that which is Good and Evil", and I believe that it is not the intended meaning.
Should it be changed to "that which is Good and that which is Evil"?
ROEL said:"At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be ascertained.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not quantifiable."
My comment: If the probability can be known with certainty (ascertained), it should be quantifiable, since its expression is a ratio (the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences). If not, the probability is subjective.
3D Student said:ROEL said:"At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be ascertained.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not quantifiable."
My comment: If the probability can be known with certainty (ascertained), it should be quantifiable, since its expression is a ratio (the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences). If not, the probability is subjective.
I think it's simply saying that there are multiple probabilities of any given Truth. And that we can not quite pinpoint with certainty the Truth as we are now, hence the non-quantifiable nature of them.
Hi ROEL,ROEL said:But I continue to struggle with what seems a contradiction: If we say ascertained (with certainty), then we are saying quantifiable.
At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be estimated, with varying degrees of certainty.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not outright quantifiable
Palinurus said:Hi ROEL,ROEL said:But I continue to struggle with what seems a contradiction: If we say ascertained (with certainty), then we are saying quantifiable.
I tend to agree with your line of reasoning. Would this rephrasing do the trick for you?
At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be estimated, with varying degrees of certainty.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not outright quantifiable
Just a thought. fwiw.
Palinurus said:Hi ROEL,ROEL said:But I continue to struggle with what seems a contradiction: If we say ascertained (with certainty), then we are saying quantifiable.
I tend to agree with your line of reasoning. Would this rephrasing do the trick for you?
At any given moment only the Probabilities of any given Truth can be estimated, with varying degrees of certainty.
These probabilities, like the Truth they concern, are objective though not outright quantifiable
Just a thought. fwiw.
Buddy said:It's like being certain that there is a 'range' and that there is something within that range that will happen, but exactly what will happen is (Heisenberg-ean) uncertain at the present time.
Classical cause-effect is passé from where I stand, but there do seem to be outcomes that favor definite preconditions.