On Oct 1, 5:44 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Oct 2, 8:32 am, Immortalista <extro...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I am not clear on your accusations of being a mystic. > > Aren't you? oh well just read the crap you write and see how similar > it is to what the religionist say about god, "e.g. it cant be known > for certain etc etc" and you will see exactly what I mean by being a > mystic, placing your mind, your state of consciousness ahead of the > matter required to trigger it. >
I have been merely explaining the current meaning of certainty which is that in logic if something is certain then other alternatives are impossible. I repeatedly presented the possible explanation that you could be dreaming all this instead of your position being certain. You continued to claim your position is completely certain but could not eliminate the possibility that you were dreaming all this up. THerefore if you are right it is a matter of luck whether you are awake or dreaming. With inductive logic certainty is not the issue, ways of testing nature and developing statistical and degrees of probable support with research methodology are the issue. How is this mystical?