DominO123 Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 (edited) Thoth, the last two you quoted are as well anti-theses of your own theses. "...To know is not to know" - Lao Tzu. Don't forget. What you imply is in contradiction with this quote. Edited September 14, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 (edited) Thoth, the last two you quoted are as well anti-theses of your own theses. "...To know is not to know" - Lao Tzu. Don't forget. What you imply is in contradiction with this quote. style_images/master/snapback.png Wrong Domino - I have never claimed to know anything definatively. Lets just say I am highly skeptical of other's claims! Speaking of you should check out my recent post (in response to a Gevo post) on another popular Armenian forum...lit directly speaks to this issue...as well as invoking you/your view on some Gevo speculation concerning possibilities for truth (for religion)! Edited September 14, 2004 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 Wrong Domino - I have never claimed to know anything definatively. Lets just say I am highly skeptical of other's claims! Speaking of you should check out my recent post (in response to a Gevo post) on another popular Armenian forum...lit directly speaks to this issue...as well as invoking you/your view on some Gevo speculation concerning possibilities for truth (for religion)! style_images/master/snapback.png You still adhere to a belief system, Lao Tzu and Socrates message were in opposition to yours, since both implies "we don't know" while you take position. It isn't the same thing. Budhas message was meant to be as well an "I don't know" but unlike the one of Lao Tzu, there is a major flaw. Budha proposed that we can't know those things, and that everything is a changing cycle, yet he proposed atheism. Suppose that our universe is build by a mad scientist, as Linde proposed once in an interview... would this mad scientist not be our god? Suppose that the universe is the simulation of a Quantum compure etc... etc... etc... The answer is that we DON'T KNOW... there is just one thing I can bring here, and it is probability, it isn't logical to think that there is only one universe, and by chances every parametters needed in order to permit life were present... suppose that we take the possibility that there is no creator(be it an Unicorn, a mad scientist, an omnicient creature, or other gods etc...), we have to conclude that there are infinity of universes... and statistically speaking, probabilities exist for things that we can't yet imagine... and if we do imagine it, it supposes that there IS a probability of this "thing"to exist. be it 0.00001% 0.00000000..........1% or whatever else. Beside that, I find pantheism or polytheism making much more sense than theism in a multi-universe scheme of things. But that's me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 Another note. You are not skeptical, the word "skeptical" has been used ad neuseum and used as a propaganda tool. Skepticism in its original sense of the term is about dought of everything... if we take position, you can't be skeptical, because this position means that you are not skeptical of your own position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 Another note. You are not skeptical, the word "skeptical" has been used ad neuseum and used as a propaganda tool. Skepticism in its original sense of the term is about dought of everything... if we take position, you can't be skeptical, because this position means that you are not skeptical of your own position. style_images/master/snapback.png But what is my position other then extreme skeptiscim? (and I'll take these guys even further to say that : Everything that we (think we) know is wrong. On a fundemental level I believe that our "knowledge" of all things is at best partial/incomplete and at worst is (?) so totally off the mark to bear nothing about reality at all...but I suppose we have to go on something eh?) And multiple universes (belief in such) may be all fine and dandy (and you call me an anythign is possible/acceptable anarchist)...but basically these are likewise unknowns (and as yet completely unobservable and unprovable and based on very immature and evolving science...science that is based on assumptions which are liekwise - at this point unprovable and only theoretical - as appealing as they might be) ..and I find this concept of "infinity" to be just well - unfathomable (by definition eh?)...it seems unatural and pretty much impossible (IMO) for there to truly be such a thing as an "infintie" (in real - other then pure mathmatical terms..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 BTW being skeptical of being skeptical -- no you are playing with semantics. Its not an absolute...it is degrees..and there is no need to regect being a skeptic because of skeptiscim..it just doesn't fly...anyway I think maybe the mods should move our discussion to another thread (and give Ara's back to him) - perhaps in theology? Maybe titled "skeptiscim and belief"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 But what is my position other then extreme skeptiscim? (and I'll take these guys even further to say that : Everything that we (think we) know is wrong. On a fundemental level I believe that our "knowledge" of all things is at best partial/incomplete and at worst is (?) so totally off the mark to bear nothing about reality at all...but I suppose we have to go on something eh?) And multiple universes (belief in such) may be all fine and dandy (and you call me an anythign is possible/acceptable anarchist)...but basically these are likewise unknowns (and as yet completely unobservable and unprovable and based on very immature and evolving science...science that is based on assumptions which are liekwise - at this point unprovable and only theoretical - as appealing as they might be) ..and I find this concept of "infinity" to be just well - unfathomable (by definition eh?)...it seems unatural and pretty much impossible (IMO) for there to truly be such a thing as an "infintie" (in real - other then pure mathmatical terms..) style_images/master/snapback.png Your knowledge of how science works is very limited if we consider what you just wrote above. First of all, your position is not strong skepticism, because you do not use the same "skepticism" to your own beliefs. You can not use one sort of standards to judge one thing and then use another set of standard for other things, this is called biases. (like your beliefs in intuition etc...) I am suprised that for months, you still didn't realised that your major argument(which I do not really disagree with) does not support your theses. I repeat, if your argument is that we can not know those things, this argument can NOT support your claim in the negative(the non-existance of something.) Now about science, as I repeated countless numbers of times. "Proof" is wrongly used by many, in fact, the first thing I do to judge a scientific abstract is to search words such as "proved." Beside mathematic, in science "proof" can not exist, "proof" supposes the rejection of the possibility other than the one that you have proven. Example, pythagorus theorem... is something universal, that has been "proven" not so long ago, the "proof" in question is universal, and support a mathematical equality. Another proof would be to "prove" that the integral or derivative of f(x) = e^x is the same mathermatical function, or why x = 0 of this function, at that point the tangent is 45 degree... or the variation is the variation of the variation etc... You can "proove" such identities, you present them to any advanced alien specy, and he'll agree with you. This is where "proof" ends(do not mix "proof" in the sense of law, with "proof" in science). As for multiple universe, yet again, your view on it contradict your own theses. You can NOT reject multiple universe theories, or claim we can never know if such a thing exist, and in the same time claim there is no god. This is contradictory, and this as well I repeated and repeated countless numbers of times, but you always repeated yet the same thing and you never bothered trying to understand why I said this, because you'll understand by yourself that logically speaking you can not propose the non-existance of a god as a reality and multiple universe as something which we can not know. I repeat and repeat, in science when the probability is less than 10^-50, it is considered as impossible... I won't enter in technicallity to explain the why of this. For life to have evolved and such complex structures to have formed, fondamental constants must have been like they are... there aren't many permutations possible for life to have evolved... masses of fondamental particules must be in a range, attractions, such as nuclear weak and strong attractions must be in a limited ranges, the same goes with gravity, atoms, like C that has a property like no other atom etc... cosmic background radiation, cosmic radiation at the initial point, the "equilbre" of galaxies after the big bang... If the big bang speed was too high, galaxies could not have formed, if too slow as well... All those parametters brought together, you come to a statistical chance of less than 10^-50/ I know that some skeptic organistions have tried to discredit this claim by manipulating numbers, and believers on the contrary have even decreased the probability < 10^-200. What is sure is that it is under 10^-50. So we are left with two option, or the universe was fine tuned by a "creator" of some form, or there is more than just one universe. The problem here again is that there is absolutly no reason at all to be a determinated number of universes. If billions, why billions, if trillions why trillions... afterall, the atheistic vision of reality exclude whys and rely only on "this is what it is." The only way of this being the cases is to wave off what is determinated, because it requires a "why." So, there is infinit numbers of universes... they are jus created and destroyed... This is not only simple speculation, it is based on what we have as the most exact of all things we know, "mathematic" our universal language. Nothingless is undeterminated, from one undeterminated reality a determinated could not have risen. And this again is based on the 7 undeterminated forms in math. So if universes comes from nothingless, the only other form of undeterminated comming from undeterminated is infinit... infinit universes. According to recent polls among physsicists, the multiple world interpretation of the universe comes even BEFORE Quantum mechanic... quantum mechanic is the MOST precise tool we have for the infinitly small, that works with a precision never achieved before. So no, the multiverse is NOT only some sort of speculation, any serious physicist that do not believe in fine tuning believe in some flavours of the multiple universe theory, because statistically speaking, if you do not believe in a god, and do not believe in the multiple universe you are not making much sense at all. Oh and, just because you can not concieve that infinit in the physicial world, it doesn't mean it doen't exist. Furthermore, as an atheist you do believe in nothingless, and nothingless is as "undeterminated"as infinit... both you can't concieve, yet one you accept. And I as well believe that this thread should be cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 BTW being skeptical of being skeptical -- no you are playing with semantics. Its not an absolute...it is degrees..and there is no need to regect being a skeptic because of skeptiscim..it just doesn't fly...anyway I think maybe the mods should move our discussion to another thread (and give Ara's back to him) - perhaps in theology? Maybe titled "skeptiscim and belief"... style_images/master/snapback.png Being skeptical is about dought... you don't have to go too far... you are using the same conception as the one used by skeptic organisations that are NOT skeptics but religious organisations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 I am sorry to have gotten you so flustered Domino - hope your OK. I don;t understand what - of my beliefs - I am to be skeptical of - of my non-belief? Seems to become an endless circle here. Next I must be skeptical of my skeptiscim of my skeptiscim etc etc. What else can I say beyond that I think that everything we believe to be true could in fact be false (or at least not entirely true)? ...this includes my own beliefs BTW.... We have no ability to assign probabilities regarding the origin of life (on our planet or in the universe or what have you) - as we don't have all the data to know the playing field or what have - that we are dealing with. And even our defintion of life (and the processes of life) may not be all inclusive (but this is entirely another argument) - bottom line - tell me what the numbers (of galaxies/systems etc etc) we are dealing with here to establish the probability of life on earth or wherever (and thats the kicker...we are too deep into the "exprirement" to be objective my dear boy....etc etc and on and on... proofs... I've never "rejected" the mutiple universe theory (and in fact I can "proove" that I was the first - long before you - to ever mention such in this forum - LOL)...but again we talk of probabilities, possibilities, certainties etc...I do reject your contention that there muct be multiple universes for there to be no God (or the inverse) - or what have you...I can and do propose the non-exsitance of Zeus (fill in name of your proposed god/gods) and at the same time state that we cannot know if there are mutiple universes. Not only was that easy to do - but it seems obvious to me...nothing in your convoluted approach to this issue is any kind of a stumbling block here - sorry.... I am frustrating ain't I? Oh and I never said that infinite - in the physical worl cannot exist..I just said that I find it very difficult to fathom that it could...but OK - yeah - I could be wrong (I just don't see a high probability thatI am...speculation of course...but...)..and you keep claiming that I am claiming certain things to be true. You are putting the words into my mouth (figuratively). So quit it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 (edited) Don't make me question your intelligence Thoth. Belief in the non-existance of a God. Belief. Dought of the belief. (skepticism) A scientist dought and speculate and try to find evidences... no evidencxes, he keep his dought but do NOT take position. Dought is NOT about rejection.... but simply DOUGHT... And as usual you are putting words in my mouth... this is not an endless cycle... it is simply about "dought..." and a skeptic when faced with lack of evidences do not take position BUT maintain dought... and will take position only when the evidences are very strong, but will ALWAYS ready to revise his position if the evidence lead him to that direction. This is ABOUT skepticism, this is what TRUE skepticism is all about. And it is VERY easy to understand what I mean here, so I have to conclude that or you on't even try to understand what I mean, or that you don't even read what I write(posts after posts I address the same critics about you, and you still havn't moved an inch). Conclusion about that? You are not a skeptic, because you have taken position, you are part of those that have hijacked what skepticism is all about. "What else can I say beyond that I think that everything we believe to be true could in fact be false (or at least not entirely true)? ...this includes my own beliefs BTW...." This is what skepticism is all about, but this contradict your theses. "We have no ability to assign probabilities regarding the origin of life (on our planet or in the universe or what have you) - as we don't have all the data to know the playing field or what have - that we are dealing with. And even our defintion of life (and the processes of life) may not be all inclusive (but this is entirely another argument) - bottom line - tell me what the numbers (of galaxies/systems etc etc) we are dealing with here to establish the probability of life on earth or wherever (and thats the kicker...we are too deep into the "exprirement" to be objective my dear boy....etc etc and on and on..." Basic statstics learning will do you more good than harm. It is true that we do not know every parametters, but statistics works based on "attributing" more importance to the parametters we do know and compleat it with speculations, that the variation won't change much the conclusion. And here again, I am even not talking about the numbers of galaxies or systems, you see how you do even not try to understand what I am talking about? Here we are trying to calculate the probability that life could be possible if there was only one universe, NOT the probability of life in THIS universe. There is a huge difference between both. It is a certainty that there is life in this universe... and we can speculate by parametters, like how much solar systems there is, how much galaxies etc... The point here is about physical constants, etc... physical constants that are the same in every corners of THIS universe... a little change and the universe would be compleatly different, and could to permit the apparition of life. THIS IS OF WHAT I was talking about. The constants we know, are KNOWN parametters, and EVERY SERIOUS statistics I have seen about them ALONE give us under 10^-50. The parametters we don't know will ONLY decrease the chances and NOT increase them, because probabilities can not be higher than 1, so a certainty multiplied to other probabilities, the best it could do is to preserve the same chances... that are ALREADY under 10^-50. I propose you to read about why Lindi was initiated to hiw conception of the inflationist theory. "I do reject your contention that there muct be multiple universes for there to be no God (or the inverse) - or what have you...I can and do propose the non-exsitance of Zeus (fill in name of your proposed god/gods) and at the same time state that we cannot know if there are mutiple universes. Not only was that easy to do - but it seems obvious to me...nothing in your convoluted approach to this issue is any kind of a stumbling block here - sorry...." I think that if I had to switch you with a five old kid, he would at this point not bring yet again this same thing, when having been shown countless numbers of times that this was the logic that contradict your main theses. I don't need to say more here. "Oh and I never said that infinite - in the physical worl cannot exist..I just said that I find it very difficult to fathom that it could...but OK - yeah - I could be wrong (I just don't see a high probability thatI am...speculation of course...but...)..and you keep claiming that I am claiming certain things to be true. You are putting the words into my mouth (figuratively). So quit it! :silly:" Don't use the term probability, when you obviously don't know what it is for your own sake. I am sorry to have gotten you so flustered Domino - hope your OK. I don;t understand what - of my beliefs - I am to be skeptical of - of my non-belief? Seems to become an endless circle here. Next I must be skeptical of my skeptiscim of my skeptiscim etc etc. What else can I say beyond that I think that everything we believe to be true could in fact be false (or at least not entirely true)? ...this includes my own beliefs BTW.... We have no ability to assign probabilities regarding the origin of life (on our planet or in the universe or what have you) - as we don't have all the data to know the playing field or what have - that we are dealing with. And even our defintion of life (and the processes of life) may not be all inclusive (but this is entirely another argument) - bottom line - tell me what the numbers (of galaxies/systems etc etc) we are dealing with here to establish the probability of life on earth or wherever (and thats the kicker...we are too deep into the "exprirement" to be objective my dear boy....etc etc and on and on... proofs... I've never "rejected" the mutiple universe theory (and in fact I can "proove" that I was the first - long before you - to ever mention such in this forum - LOL)...but again we talk of probabilities, possibilities, certainties etc...I do reject your contention that there muct be multiple universes for there to be no God (or the inverse) - or what have you...I can and do propose the non-exsitance of Zeus (fill in name of your proposed god/gods) and at the same time state that we cannot know if there are mutiple universes. Not only was that easy to do - but it seems obvious to me...nothing in your convoluted approach to this issue is any kind of a stumbling block here - sorry.... I am frustrating ain't I? Oh and I never said that infinite - in the physical worl cannot exist..I just said that I find it very difficult to fathom that it could...but OK - yeah - I could be wrong (I just don't see a high probability thatI am...speculation of course...but...)..and you keep claiming that I am claiming certain things to be true. You are putting the words into my mouth (figuratively). So quit it! style_images/master/snapback.png Edited September 14, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 Domino Domino Domino - its true - we go round and round...I must have an infintie number of "beliefs" then - as I do not believe in Mithra, Allah, Odin, Ra, etc etc etc...no I am just highly skeptical that any of these exist - but in fact I do believe that there is a probability that some or all of that could exist or could have...and I am likewise skeptical but potentially accepting of the possibility that the Christian God - or various possibilities of such - including that such a being with the powers and attributes attributed to such (forgetting the various contradictions of course - as there are just so many) just might possibly exist...but again - which one...(probability is so very low though it seems...no matter)...I think it more probable that if the Bible tells some truth about this being that my conclusion is that he is more likely something more akin to Loki - and that he is having quite a few laughs at our various miseries...anyway - none of these non-beliefs (infinitesimly low probability IMO...there you go - approaching the infinite...) constitutes a (religeous) belief on my part - sorry in no way does it...and in the end I jst remain - as I have said - skeptical...highly...(and I am - of course - always ready to revise/modify/adjust my position based on additional evidence and such - of course...) no contradictions... As far as life and the universe...I propose that what we know of the paremeters is less then what we don't...so there! It seems as if the building blocks for life abound...nearly everywhere that we can view - in the known universe (only one we "know" [of]...thus really only one we should be speculating on..I mean who knows what the building blocks of the others are/might be - bubble gum and such...) - so many potential variables there...anyway so I think you are reaching when you attempt to assign probabilities here...and make conclusions thenceforth. And you are incorrectly factoring the probabilites besides..in sort of a half-empty/half-full manner...to claim that supposed negative mitigating factors against life somehow multiply each other (I say half full...etc)...and I am surprised how easily you seem to want to reject the scientific explanation for the mystical in this case ( ) yes probabilities...I know you play ches Domino...as do I....but I play poker & blackjack etc as well...and you claim I know nothing of probabilities...ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 Did I say anything about the bible????? Why don't you talk about your belief of your paranormal powers such as intuition. Would be interesting to know why in one cases you do not maintain skepticism and in the other you do. Reread what I said about skepticism, but of course you won't even try to understand it. "As far as life and the universe...I propose that what we know of the paremeters is less then what we don't...so there! It seems as if the building blocks for life abound...nearly everywhere that we can view - in the known universe (only one we "know" [of]...thus really only one we should be speculating on..I mean who knows what the building blocks of the others are/might be - bubble gum and such...) - so many potential variables there...anyway so I think you are reaching when you attempt to assign probabilities here...and make conclusions thenceforth." Bonehead, again you are mixing parameters for life in THIS universe that we know are needed in order to make life possible AND the likehood that those parameters could have existed in the only universe existing if one consider there is only one universe. We know that amino acids, complext organic molecules etc... are needed, we have evidences that commets do carry complext organic molecules... etc... those parameters DO EXIST in our own universe and because of that there is life... The question IS NOT THIS. The question is about the particularity of THIS universe that were/is primordial in order to make life possible. This Sip understood RIGHT AWAY when TB and me were discussing about it... for a reason you still are mixing probability of life emerging in this universe WITH fondamental constants and properties of this universe that made possible the conditions in questions to exist to make life possible. I repeat, fondemntal constants are about the masses of protons, the laws regarding the 4 interactions etc... or other things, like the fact that most of matter, from the conversion of energy formed particules and not anti particules which prevented the inhalition, or prevented the potential needed to form the first galaxies etc... Galaxies are example of what one could think of as fine tuned... What I am talking about is the probability that if one universe existed, this universe could have all needed to form atoms, forming molecules forming organic complext molecules, forming amino-acids, and finally the cell... a little differences in the particularity of atoms and those complex structures could have been impossible. So, it is rationaly and statistically impossible(under 10^-50) for the universe to have the constants needed to make life possible, if there was one universe. Think about it for an instance before preparing another long trash of repetition... and I REPEAT!!! I am not talking about the chances there are in THIS universe to form life with the known constants, but rather, the chances there is that those constants exist only by chances if there is only one universe. And I repeat and REPEAT... In probability, if you know some of the parameters and don't know others... and that those paramters are about the possibility of their occurance... the best you could have for the unkbown parameters would be 1(certainty)... so any new parameters the best ti could do is to maintain the probability you have. Example... if there is 1 chance out of 6 for someone to be hit by a car when he is on the road, and that there is 1/10 chance for that person to have an arm to leave the body and fly on itself because of the impact, and that from it there is 1 out of 10 to have a finger broke... suppose that we want to know the probability for a nail from the finger broke to be left intact and that we do not have the parameters following the probability of fingers broke... we can still calculate a probability that would be considered as "at most." Because the highest probability possibles for the parameters which we don't know that follows would be 1. If we multiply those multiplications by one we will still obtain the same value... So, the fact that we do not know those parameters don't change much to the fact that it is impossible( above 10^-50), that the only universe that exist to have every parameters that exist to permit all this complexity that permited life to exist. "And you are incorrectly factoring the probabilites besides..in sort of a half-empty/half-full manner...to claim that supposed negative mitigating factors against life somehow multiply each other (I say half full...etc)...and I am surprised how easily you seem to want to reject the scientific explanation for the mystical in this case ( )" You have no clue of what you are talking about... there are two ways to do propability, by studying the possibility of the accurace and the possibility of the non-accurance... if rejecting the possibility of the "neither" (which is an undeterministic conception), we arrive to the same conclusion... and the "multiplication" here is how things are done, I havn't invented anything, this is probability and statistic, your rejection of this principale on the other hand is what one may call rejection of scientific explanation. "yes probabilities...I know you play ches Domino...as do I....but I play poker & blackjack etc as well...and you claim I know nothing of probabilities..." Doesn't say much, someone can repeat a poem, it doesn't mean he understand it, someone can repeat a book about quantum mechanic, doesn't mean if he understand it. "no contradictions..." 1-A god does not exist, 2-We can't know about those questions. Affirmation two reject 1, this like it or not. Domino Domino Domino - its true - we go round and round...I must have an infintie number of "beliefs" then - as I do not believe in Mithra, Allah, Odin, Ra, etc etc etc...no I am just highly skeptical that any of these exist - but in fact I do believe that there is a probability that some or all of that could exist or could have...and I am likewise skeptical but potentially accepting of the possibility that the Christian God - or various possibilities of such - including that such a being with the powers and attributes attributed to such (forgetting the various contradictions of course - as there are just so many) just might possibly exist...but again - which one...(probability is so very low though it seems...no matter)...I think it more probable that if the Bible tells some truth about this being that my conclusion is that he is more likely something more akin to Loki - and that he is having quite a few laughs at our various miseries...anyway - none of these non-beliefs (infinitesimly low probability IMO...there you go - approaching the infinite...) constitutes a (religeous) belief on my part - sorry in no way does it...and in the end I jst remain - as I have said - skeptical...highly...(and I am - of course - always ready to revise/modify/adjust my position based on additional evidence and such - of course...) no contradictions... As far as life and the universe...I propose that what we know of the paremeters is less then what we don't...so there! It seems as if the building blocks for life abound...nearly everywhere that we can view - in the known universe (only one we "know" [of]...thus really only one we should be speculating on..I mean who knows what the building blocks of the others are/might be - bubble gum and such...) - so many potential variables there...anyway so I think you are reaching when you attempt to assign probabilities here...and make conclusions thenceforth. And you are incorrectly factoring the probabilites besides..in sort of a half-empty/half-full manner...to claim that supposed negative mitigating factors against life somehow multiply each other (I say half full...etc)...and I am surprised how easily you seem to want to reject the scientific explanation for the mystical in this case ( ) yes probabilities...I know you play ches Domino...as do I....but I play poker & blackjack etc as well...and you claim I know nothing of probabilities...ha! style_images/master/snapback.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.