Do you disagree with the statements? Do you think the eruption is not a certainty?
Let's focus on the second: Do you think the eruption is not a certainty?
Here is the story.
A = {event that place X will erupt}
MQ, in his usual put-down style, attacked a simple post I made about karma. This is a subject he knows nothing about. Having pointed that out, and explaining why I could say, with probability 1, that the sun will rise tomorrow (without using science or technology), it became necessary to show that MQ has trouble even where science is concerned.
1. MQ says event A is highly likely, and P(A) = 1, in the same breath. Like MQ, one of those statements is redundant.
2. MQ has not shown us how he arrived at either clause.
3. MQ, apparently, can start anywhere and arrive anywhere. You can do this only if your mouth is larger than your head.
Now take the first: Do you disagree with the statements?
It is not my nature to agree or disagree. I do not attack people even when I know they are wrong, let alone toss around things I know little or nothing about. Now do you suppose MQ has any such constraints? :)
Whether place X erupts or not has nothing to do with how MQ decided it probably will and will in the same breath.
|
