From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jul 21 2005 - 08:56:54 MDT
> > It is true that my estimate that the probability is much greater than
> > infinitesimal is based on nonrigorous intuitions rather than rigorous
> > arguments, but it is NOT true that my estimate is based on
> "pure paranoia"
> Intuition, paranoia, whatever. If you don't have evidence, then how do you
> dispute my claim that the probability is infinitesimal?
Indeed, you can't prove the probability is infinitesimal, I can't prove it's
substantial. We are both making estimates of the probability based on
different generalizations from our different prior-knowledge-bases.
To debate the issue further would require a very and deep long discussion,
where I'd have to tell you all my speculations about physics and you'd have
to use your own knowledge of physics to assign probabilities to each of
them. But to write down all my speculations about physics in enough detail
for others to understand them would probably take me a year, and I have
other priorities. So I guess this thread will have to dwindle for now...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT