Enter the paradox I spoke of. The fact that certain things aren’t subject to change itself can be subject to change. But you said: Sure, you can change the axioms you start with, but then you are talking about different objects. In this, you have my total agreement.
Enter the paradox I spoke of. The fact that certain things aren’t subject to change itself can be subject to change.
But you said:
Sure, you can change the axioms you start with, but then you are talking about different objects. In this, you have my total agreement.
Sure, you can change the axioms you start with, but then you are talking about different objects.
In this, you have my total agreement.
It’s a paradox. You’re expecting it to make sense and not be contradictory. That’s… the opposite of correct.
No, there is no paradox. If one changes the axioms of probability, then you have a new, different version of probability, which cannot be directly compared to our current version, because they are different constructions.
It’s a paradox. You’re expecting it to make sense and not be contradictory. That’s… the opposite of correct.
No, there is no paradox. If one changes the axioms of probability, then you have a new, different version of probability, which cannot be directly compared to our current version, because they are different constructions.