@Whithers How would you design a study of mortality?

@Whithers There is no such thing as evidence in science. Epistemology 101.

I think you're waxing philosophical here when there's no real reason to

In near Eastern logic one can ask,"All though it is impossible, what if ... ?" But in Western Logic, hence science, that speculation into what can not be observed is not evidentiary. @Doc

@Whithers How would you design a study of Mortality?

I told you. You can only look at the real. You cannot project what did not occur.

That answer makes no sense.

Describe the methodology, please?

@Whithers we want to study the mortality among 20-25 year old females in Canada. What research design do you suppose?

@Doc <Hands Doc an empty plate> Enjoy your speculated cheeseburger and fries. 🙁

its fine to use life years, its not projecting.

@Whithers Carry on. 😂

No, it isn't. And I hate it when corporations pull that same math BS. "I choose to expect to make 1 trillion dollars this year!" Oops, I only made 1 billion, so I have a 99 billion dollar loss to file for my taxes.

yes it is

this is pretty much what science does, it builds models fit what we observe and turns the dials on the models to see what we can expect if we change the input ... folks can argue about how useful it is but doing so on a discord chat whose very existence depends on numerous technologies all brought to you by that same model building seems counter-productive to say the least

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.