# Peter, because of you, I’ve crossed paths with this Kenneth Udut fellow. Initially I called him a raging fucktard. But we have since become friends. I admire the dude, for whatever reasons. Also glad to have you in my circles man. You’re one of my favorite brains on this planet.

Peter, because of you, I’ve crossed paths with this Kenneth Udut fellow. Initially I called him a raging fucktard. But we have since become friends. I admire the dude, for whatever reasons. Also glad to have you in my circles man. You’re one of my favorite brains on this planet.

===

Oh you weren’t wrong. I AM a raging fucktard. [ Naveed Akhtar may still agree with that – I made some overly wordy rants this morning before coffee in a thread with Naveed] but I value our new friendship Jim – and I’m with you about Peter. Got an amazing brain.
—-
The skin of a blackhole is the new turtle shell
===
Let’s see if I can mesh our schemas: One of mine is “evidence vs possible vs probable”. You have “definitely possible” and “possibly possible”. That’s an interesting distinction. What provides the certainty for the “definitely possible”? is it internal logical consistency?
Ok: so “logical deduction” leads to “definitely possible” and, hm, would it be “logical induction” that leads to “possibly possible”?
====
Ok, so not committing to a hard deduction vs induction divide. Understandable.So it sounds that your “definitely possible” and “possibly possible” is my “possible”.Could I subdivide into two? I think so. I recently read of a rigorous definition of “possible” which involves logical deduction. [it was the possibility of quantum superposition and was related to “can qubits be developed?”]. The probability of quantum logic circuits was conjectured way back in the 1960s, but it wasn’t until the early-mid 1990s that someone came up with a logical proof making it “possible”.

Since then, of course, we have them.

====
Their definition of “probable” is different than mine. They use “statistical probabilities” as probable but mine is more an overall “is it likely?” or a “let’s get real here”.
=====
I agree. But what i don’t care for about most “statistical probabilities” is they don’t include enough variables.

I think about probabilities more like an insurance adjuster thinks about “risk probability”: They include a LOT of risk factors, some quite unexpected, whereas standard statistical probability methods only seem to use whatever leads them to their goal point.

=====