Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider --- Trump and Hitler
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 12:56:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <535429f42aa38c056009f05fa22d632ebd823b7c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me>
 <c600a691fab10473128eed2a1fad2a429ad4733f@i2pn2.org>
 <vbh2sp$19ov0$1@dont-email.me> <vbhm3c$1c7u5$12@dont-email.me>
 <vbkdph$1v80k$1@dont-email.me> <vbne7e$2g6vo$6@dont-email.me>
 <vbp1d7$2sg7q$1@dont-email.me> <vbqnqi$381t6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbrh87$3fttk$1@dont-email.me> <vbrvln$3im2p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbsglu$3mme2$5@dont-email.me> <vbt8di$3rqef$1@dont-email.me>
 <6ea95eadc7229a1670d4705b149b4a2bb0290846@i2pn2.org>
 <vbtis7$1glm$1@dont-email.me>
 <50f1b5a566928de7d70d86f03260ea519f0436e9@i2pn2.org>
 <vbtkt5$1psh$1@dont-email.me>
 <23df01d430433cf117a4e87de77698eac39355e1@i2pn2.org>
 <vbumr0$8crn$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7f045c8c0e9cac680a4b8426d3fac859696966c@i2pn2.org>
 <vbupcn$91rb$1@dont-email.me>
 <87b7f511951963d28217349e97fd5835a644e9bb@i2pn2.org>
 <vbvcn8$cgsm$1@dont-email.me>
 <38030d368928bd88576b32b69c6e2c8d598a9e26@i2pn2.org>
 <vc049c$grkl$4@dont-email.me>
 <ef2927805f07bfa71a174ae4aa30beb830deae89@i2pn2.org>
 <vc1hv8$tcfb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 16:56:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1928020"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vc1hv8$tcfb$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5405
Lines: 77

On 9/13/24 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/12/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/12/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/12/2024 3:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/12/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/12/2024 1:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you ADMIT that you have lied about the ability to PROVE your 
>>>>>> statement as an actual ANALYTIC PROOF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Proof" in a court of law is not a mathematical proof, dipshit?.
>>>>
>>>> Right, so your claiming the development of a system of LOGIC means 
>>>> you are not talking about "legal proof" (to the specified level of 
>>>> doubt) but the mathematical level where proof means ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolute certainty within a set of axioms.
>>
>> But we don't know the correct set of axioms.
>>
>>>
>>> When we search the body of everything that was ever written
>>> down and find that there was never any actual evidence of
>>> election fraud that was sufficient to change the outcome of
>>> the 2020 presidential election then we can say with 100%
>>> perfect certainty that this evidence does not exist in
>>> everything that was ever written down.
>>>
>>
>> Just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>
>> After all,  if you REALLY read EVERYTHING written about what happened, 
>> you WILL find statements claiming people seeing things that could have 
>> been signs of things indicating evidence of the needed level of voter 
>> fraud. Only when you look into that statements, and what physical 
>> evidence might back it, do we find those statement to be unbelievable, 
>> but you can't do that by "axioms".
>>
>> There are statistical analysis showing it to be "virtually impossible" 
>> for the vote total swings to go as they went (based on some simple 
>> claimed to be reasonable statisitcal models)
>>
>> This shows that "Logic" isn't enough, but you need the right 
>> discretion to make the correct initial axioms, and the "deniers" will 
>> just disagree with that choise of axioms, and thus your "proof" 
>> becomes invalid in their eyes.
>>
>> Thus, we see the utter stupidity in your logic, because you need to 
>> agree with your claims to see that you are right, which is NOT a 
>> "proof" in any sense of the words.
> 
> Actual evidence has a sufficiently precise legal definition.
> That 45% of the electorate hear the same baseless lie repeated
> does not count as any actual evidence what-so-ever in any court
> of law. It must be evidence that election fraud did occur and
> cannot be evidence that election fraud could have possibly occurred.
> 

Yes, and that legal definition comes with a part that says it can only 
be determined by the appropriate Court of Law, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for 
any program to actually determine "sufficently evidence" excpet by 
finding a court case pronouncing it, and even that might not be binding 
on another court.

"Rules of Evidence" are matters for LEGAL cases, not the determination 
of "Truth".

Sorry, but you are just showing your ignorance of what you talk about.

*YOU* Made the claim that you think it is possible for "AI" to determine 
ACTUAL TRUTH, and then you back off and admit that you doh't mean that 
but something else, but you alse want to try to claim that to be actual 
truth.

Sorry, all you are doing is proving that you are too stupid to 
understand what you are actually talking about.