> Isn't it obvious that interpretation does not apply in this situation? Why not? > It is not an accusation. It is a statement. It is an accusation. It is al

> Isn't it obvious that interpretation does not apply in this situation? Why not? > It is not an accusation. It is a statement. It is an accusation. It is also a false statement. > Isn't it obvious then that it cannot be used to justify anything where no money is at stake and no bet regarding the outcome can ever be resolved? This is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. It's like saying the expected value of a dice roll doesn't exist because no roll ever equals 3.5, or the average of any number of trials is not necessarily 3.5. It's claiming a counterfactual is false because its antecedent is false. > PS: This will be my last comment in this thread because I get the distinct feeling that I am talking to Eliza instead of a human being. You're welcome to run away with your tail between your legs after making baseless accusations and misunderstanding the concept of probability.