thank you for your precision, in the future i will assure you that i will try to be more clear in my writing(this is hard for me being both autistic and dyslexic) but even with this your downvote is understandable.
What I am interested in is not what is predictable but what is true and real
True and real things are the absolutely most predictable things there are. Predictions of the false or unreal will sometimes be wrong. They’re absolutely not the same thing, but predictions are the closest we have to truth, until we experience the truth.
Note that probability is in the predictor, not (necessarily) in the universe itself. Truth is what happens, with probability 1.
this theorem states that if given a random statement out of the set of all true or false statements then this statement is 50 percent likely to be true.
Here’s the problem. This is just wrong. There are infinite numbers of true and false statements, so it’s not defined what possible “random” distribution of statements even means. If you show your work on why you say “theorem”, I’ll be able to point out the flawed axiom or step you used.
first of all thank you for your response.
thank you for your precision, in the future i will assure you that i will try to be more clear in my writing(this is hard for me being both autistic and dyslexic) but even with this your downvote is understandable.
do you have any critique of the idea?
I’ll try.
True and real things are the absolutely most predictable things there are. Predictions of the false or unreal will sometimes be wrong. They’re absolutely not the same thing, but predictions are the closest we have to truth, until we experience the truth.
Note that probability is in the predictor, not (necessarily) in the universe itself. Truth is what happens, with probability 1.
Here’s the problem. This is just wrong. There are infinite numbers of true and false statements, so it’s not defined what possible “random” distribution of statements even means. If you show your work on why you say “theorem”, I’ll be able to point out the flawed axiom or step you used.