Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with probability
Search options not deleted
user 68027
Use for questions about chance and likelihood, and attempts to define "probability" logically and metaphysically.
0
votes
Is an omniscient entity self-refuting?
You seem to have two primary problems. First, you seem to be arbitrarily limiting your "omniscient" being to be unable to know certain things, and then demanding that it know them. That's not self-def …
- 646
1
vote
Doesn't fallibilism complexify Pascal's wager further?
Pascal's Wager is an argument from formal logic. It outlines several premises and a conclusion. As such, it can only be wrong if the rules of reason are wrong. In order for formal logic to be wrong, w …
- 646