In a universe with eternal time before now there would be no such thing as a moment an infinite amount of time before now because it's not possible to...
when you break it down though we're getting this as the logical argument: 1) infinite time with no starting point 2) cannot get to now without a start...
More generally is it incorrect to point out that some unknown property may exist between "a" and "a" that makes them different? Would claiming no prop...
"time start+?" in your point number 4 contradicts point number 1. You're identifying a start point when you've already said none existed. The proof it...
I've given thoughts about this myself If we assume an eternal universe we are assuming that there exists an unlimited amount of time before now. I don...
In the P("I own a car") > P("I own a red car") sense yeah. More detail can increase the likelihood too like: P("I own a red car given that I own somet...
I would have thought the more witnesses with consistent answers adds credibility. Assuming honesty and the existence of the witnesses in order for the...
Yeah I've considered that when determining "P(Person 1 won the lottery | Person 1 is being truthful) < P(Person 2 won the lottery | Person 2 is being ...
It should be true given certain basic assumptions about symbols and logic. Most importantly the law of identity needs to be true or "X=X". What's on t...
In a situation where Person 1 and Person 2 are being truthful it seems to me that Person 2 is more likely to be an actual lottery winner because of co...
Comments