3 ms·
Yes that’s my point, and because you want to ‘extend’ to ‘n>1’, this is doubly impossible without picking. i.e. you literally cannot accomplish this otherwise,
by MichaelZuo 3y ago
Yes that’s my point, and because you want to ‘extend’ to ‘n>1’, this is doubly impossible without picking.
i.e. you literally cannot accomplish this otherwise, even for the simplest case of n=2, with certainty. Since there’s always a non zero possibility of any chosen person becoming much smarter and wiser than you in the future.
Via ignoring the infinite number of futures where they do.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoThe infinities have the same cardinality. Any consideration of a finite subset still ignores an infinite number of unconsidered possibilities whether n=1 or not. Besides, any choice you make for yourself has an impact on others in the second order. Ignoring it makes the problem worse. No one is a isolated system, no man an island.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoYes that’s my point, n=1 is already impossible, n>1 even more so.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoHow can something be more impossible? Impossiblity is boolean.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoStop messing around. Take the lesson learned and move on out of here, I’m being generous but someone less patient would have flagged this by now. Digging an ever deeper hole for yourself at this point is distracting from the actual post.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoThere's always the possibility of going back, re-reading and changing your mind. What's the worst that could happen if you believed that you could make decisions while keeping in mind other people?
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThis seems like ignoring the previous comment, so take it or leave it, the previous points are still there.