for example, if you have lets say diabetes

@meglide you cant do that, because you dont know what change is.

I speculate I will live 250 years. So my lost life years will be I speculate 178 years.

in the western system change is poorly defined, so an study of "change" would be wrong

@Whithers it doesnt work like that

because you cant define change.

@Whithers You cant do that, because you arent meta-speculating.

you first need to understand that you are speculating, and then assess the amount of speculating over that speculation.

it's my model I know where the knobs are and I turn them if I want to ... so stop pushing my buttons 😛

That is what all of it is @Doc.

ROFL

@meglide we dont now what "knob" means either.

@Whithers what is "all"?

we dont know that either

You cannot know the amount of speculation over your speculating.

so any study into "all" would in fact be nothing.

https://rumble.com/vbmlkl-doj-suing-facebook.html 2600 jobs, 150k per year each working for Facebook

If you know it, you have experienced it, which eradicates the speculative part and renders it positive evidence.

@Whithers, you just advanced to level 19!

@Whithers "know" is the same thing. You cant "Know" anything. So any study into what we "Know" will be wrong.

Ah, but experience, might not be valid!

sorry I guess I ventured into engineering ... a scientist conducts a study, an engineer sees that and attaches "knobs" and begins turning

@Whithers I cant do research into your experience as it is clearly yours, not mine.

@Doc If existence is then experience is is reflexive. If existence is not, then experience is illusory. We are each a Schrödinger's cat in one of Piaget's black boxes communicating on a wire between cups with another Schrödinger's cat in another of Piaget's black boxes, unless of course we are all dead cats.

@Whithers If I am me, because I am me, and you are you because you are you, that is fine. But If I am me because you are you, and you are you because I am me, then I am not truly me, and you are not truly you. Then we have a problem.

Existence is 1. There cannot exist 2 existences. The only way to have more than one thing is to divide the whole. 1 ÷ 2 = 3. Both halves and the totality. All things are a division of the whole.

Khufu already knew that the universe exists only between 0 and 1.

@Doc Yes, I have studied R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz and Rabbi Steinsaltz. 😉

all this because for a discussion on life expectancy statistics? ... y'all are killing me 🤣

Pun intended?

ROFL

but of course

life expectancy goes down as you argue about life expectancy?

One of the biggest problems for science has always been its dependence on principles and axioms for which it can have no legitimate evidence and without which it cannot function as a reliable structure.

well, then the Relative Risk of engaging in Mortality Rate discussions in an online chat app is officially 1.3

lol

out there us is a parlell meglide now still alive because he did not take part in this discussion.....if that is how Mortality rates work....

yes everyone brings their presuppositions to the table or lab bench as it were

@meglide You might enjoy this. I don't agree with him on some of his research, but his general critique is accurate enough - unless you are a religious scientist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE&t=1s

That is a banned TED talk.

okay well I did the check that I promised and 1600 samples out of ~30k is enough to say with good confidence that those ballots won't change the outcome