On Aug 13, 3:31 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 11:43 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Inductive reasoning has this non-contradictory nature in relation to
> > the past, but once you propose that this non-contradictory reasoning
> > extends across all time including the future,
>
> The future by definition never arrives Mortal, sort out your
> definitions / identity of your concepts.
>
> The best you can ever do, with the concept man has called the future,
> is to make predictions based on the exact continuation of current
> situation/s and man's current knowledge.
>
> Your knowledge can only be of the now and past, based on the currently
> known and available and previous evidence and experience.
>
> All of man's knowledge is contextual and hierarchical.
>
> There is absolute 100% certain evidence that man can make extremely
> accurate predictions, life saving and life enhancing predictions, but
> those predictions are always contingent because the future by
> definition never arrives, man deals with and lives in the now now now
> now using the current and past data.
>
As long as you continue to concede that "extremely accurate
predictions" are not identical to certainty, I agree. You yourself
have just admitted that there is always a chance for error and that
beliefs about observations always have a chance of being mistaken.
> The only people who claim or might claim a definite future are the
> mystics and or the Kantians who cant even claim they are the real and
> absolute representations of the outside world to other humans.
>
You were the one making claims about the next moment with the present,
and I was merely claiming that these are probabilities not
certainties.
> Michael Gordge
|
