November 27, 2024: Our X/Twitter account (@threadreaderapp) got hacked. Do NOT click on any of the scammy crypto links on our X account or send any coins to deceptive wallets.
We do something amazing today, which you won’t find done is nearly any other probability course, unless that course is based on either of these two books. We prove:
1. Probability can be a number; 2. That this number has a certain numerical form, which is bounded in [0,1];
3...
3. That all probability is conditional; 4. That all probability is an extension, nay, completion of logic; 5. That probability, once the evidence and propositions are subjectively chosen, is like logic and entirely objective;
6...
6. That the definition of probability is a measure of the certainty of a given proposition with respect to assumed evidence; 7. That therefore all other interpretations are lacking and in some way wrong.
Why are things so bad? And why will they continue to grow worse? The Enlightenment. Also known—or, rather, as it should be known—as The Great Corruption.
Things are bad because we all believe the Enlightenment’s foundational axioms, all of which are false. But all of which drive much of our behavior and our thoughts.
David Stove: “It was always obvious enough what the main axioms of the Enlightenment were. They were secularism, egalitarianism, and the utilitarian axiom, that the test of morality is the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” From his book On Enlightenment.
I think it is different than the Assemblies [note the plural] of Yahweh (who are bigger). They are the Assembly [no plural] of Yahweh. There do seem to be many overlaps in beliefs, though.
You can't get in their church without a background check:
About the Contest, Jim Franklin said, "In [Stove’s] marking scheme, half the marks went to the degree of badness of the argument, half to the degree of its endorsement by philosophers. Thus an argument was sought that was both very bad, and very prevalent."
The Argument next.
THE GEM
We can know things only
* as they are related to us
* [or] under our forms of perception and understanding
* [or] insofar as they fall under our conceptual schemes,