Pearson, it’s not that kind of chaining. More like trying to explain to someone why their randomly chosen lottery ticket won’t win (big space, small target, poor aim) when their brain manufactures argument after argument after different argument for why they’ll soon be rich.
The core problem is simple. The targeting information disappears, so does the good outcome. Knowing enough to refute every fallacious remanufacturing of the value-information from nowhere, is the hard part.
What are the odds that every proof of God’s existence is wrong, when there are so many proofs? Pretty high. A selective search for plausible-sounding excuses won’t change reality itself. But knowing the specific refutations—being able to pinpoint the flaws in every supposed proof—that might take some study.
Pearson, it’s not that kind of chaining. More like trying to explain to someone why their randomly chosen lottery ticket won’t win (big space, small target, poor aim) when their brain manufactures argument after argument after different argument for why they’ll soon be rich.
The core problem is simple. The targeting information disappears, so does the good outcome. Knowing enough to refute every fallacious remanufacturing of the value-information from nowhere, is the hard part.
What are the odds that every proof of God’s existence is wrong, when there are so many proofs? Pretty high. A selective search for plausible-sounding excuses won’t change reality itself. But knowing the specific refutations—being able to pinpoint the flaws in every supposed proof—that might take some study.