Many of you seem to think there is an axiom of reasoning that says the persuasiveness of an argument must be independent of what you know about the process that produced that argument. There is no such axiom, nor should there be.
In particular, depending on the process that produces an argument, you may have to infer the existence of evidence not seen.
Hmmm. If I understand you correctly, then two people could produce an identical argument but one would be incorrect because he did it backwards? Do you suppose that there is an implied arrow of time in every syllogism?
More like… Hamlet might be just as good if it had been written by monkeys on typewriters instead of Shakespeare, but there’s a reason why it wasn’t.
Even if things come out equally by luck in one world, it would have different entanglements in possible worlds. The entanglements wouldn’t follow. It’s like the lottery ticket that happens to win in your Everett branch or Tegmark duplicate—buying it still wasn’t a rational act. Only a forward-flowing algorithm will make the entanglements match up.
Many of you seem to think there is an axiom of reasoning that says the persuasiveness of an argument must be independent of what you know about the process that produced that argument. There is no such axiom, nor should there be.
In particular, depending on the process that produces an argument, you may have to infer the existence of evidence not seen.
Hmmm. If I understand you correctly, then two people could produce an identical argument but one would be incorrect because he did it backwards? Do you suppose that there is an implied arrow of time in every syllogism?
More like… Hamlet might be just as good if it had been written by monkeys on typewriters instead of Shakespeare, but there’s a reason why it wasn’t.
Even if things come out equally by luck in one world, it would have different entanglements in possible worlds. The entanglements wouldn’t follow. It’s like the lottery ticket that happens to win in your Everett branch or Tegmark duplicate—buying it still wasn’t a rational act. Only a forward-flowing algorithm will make the entanglements match up.