"We all know already, because Keltham already showed us, how, if something's only a hundredth as likely as something else, you need to see something that's one hundred times more likely, given that thing, in order to believe it."
"So the thing is - I'm not sure how to say this, it's hard to convey, what I was seeing with the headband on - that's like - the equivalent of logic, but governing the things that people usually argue about. It's, the equivalent of which conclusions follow from which premises, for things that aren't true across all worlds. It's why Keltham complains that our books don't make any sense. The books say, this thing happened, that isn't all that unlikely, and they don't say how likely it is in other worlds or prove it's less likely there, and then the book says, well, therefore you must be in this world. The book he's reading doesn't even put a probability on that - just jumps there - even with the headband off, I took out a book, and tried to read it the way it must have read to Keltham -"
"You need, depending on how you look at it, two or three pieces of information, to feed into a Lawful reasoning step that goes from observing something, to a probable conclusion about it. You need to know how relatively likely two theories seemed to be, compared to each other, before the evidence - I'm not sure where the very first probabilities come from before there's any evidence at all, but don't tell me yet, Keltham, I want to see if I can get that on my own - and you need to know how much probability both of those theories put, on something you saw. In principle you just have to know, how much more likely the sight is, in one case, than in the other, but I don't see how you'd often end up knowing the ratio without knowing the pieces -"
"When I was hoping I could calm down after taking off the artifact headband, I took a random history book in our new library, and flipped through until I got somewhere interesting at all. It was about the assassination of the Prefect of Tandak fifty years ago. The author argued that the assassin probably came from Whitemarch because of which gate they'd used to enter the city, which is the gate you'd use if you arrived at a harbor that ships from Whitemarch use, and the author didn't say anything about whether any other prefectures also sent ships to that harbor. It was like that thought hadn't occurred to them at all. Were they trying to the fool the reader? Then that sure only works to fool very stupid and unlawful readers, doesn't it? Was it put out by a government office in Taldor telling people what they're supposed to think? Maybe, but even then, you'd think - they should at least bother to lie about that, about no other prefectures sending ships to that harbor - if you don't include the probabilities of other prefectures sending ships to that harbor, it's like - you're not even bothering to argue, you might as well print the whole chapter just saying 'Whitemarch did it' and it would say the same thing -"
"Nothing we've thought in Golarion up until this point has been remotely Lawful. We've been talking gibberish from the standpoint of any Lawful outsiders trying to listen to anything we say."
"And it's not just about the big things that are in history books, it's like - looking into the dining hall to see the food there - it would look and smell the same with a Major Illusion, the reason you believe you're actually going to find food there, is because how unlikely it is that anybody would bother to cast Major Illusion on the dining hall, how normal it is for there to be food there, it's not that the sight and smell of food is overpowering evidence that there's no illusion, it's no evidence at all against the illusion, it's just that the illusion was very unlikely to start and stays unlikely after you see the evidence."
"With Manohar's headband on I could see it, there was like - I could see the structure of the Law overlaid on things, not always, not constantly, because I had no practice, but when I considered any one step of reasoning I could see it there - I could see how the Law was supposed to work, and that my own thoughts weren't fitting into the framework, and I didn't have enough time to correct them all, but I could see how everything I was thinking was completely wrong in the light of that -"
"We all know already, because Keltham already showed us, how, if something's only a hundredth as likely as something else, you need to see something that's one hundred times more likely, given that thing, in order to believe it."
"So the thing is - I'm not sure how to say this, it's hard to convey, what I was seeing with the headband on - that's like - the equivalent of logic, but governing the things that people usually argue about. It's, the equivalent of which conclusions follow from which premises, for things that aren't true across all worlds. It's why Keltham complains that our books don't make any sense. The books say, this thing happened, that isn't all that unlikely, and they don't say how likely it is in other worlds or prove it's less likely there, and then the book says, well, therefore you must be in this world. The book he's reading doesn't even put a probability on that - just jumps there - even with the headband off, I took out a book, and tried to read it the way it must have read to Keltham -"
"You need, depending on how you look at it, two or three pieces of information, to feed into a Lawful reasoning step that goes from observing something, to a probable conclusion about it. You need to know how relatively likely two theories seemed to be, compared to each other, before the evidence - I'm not sure where the very first probabilities come from before there's any evidence at all, but don't tell me yet, Keltham, I want to see if I can get that on my own - and you need to know how much probability both of those theories put, on something you saw. In principle you just have to know, how much more likely the sight is, in one case, than in the other, but I don't see how you'd often end up knowing the ratio without knowing the pieces -"
"When I was hoping I could calm down after taking off the artifact headband, I took a random history book in our new library, and flipped through until I got somewhere interesting at all. It was about the assassination of the Prefect of Tandak fifty years ago. The author argued that the assassin probably came from Whitemarch because of which gate they'd used to enter the city, which is the gate you'd use if you arrived at a harbor that ships from Whitemarch use, and the author didn't say anything about whether any other prefectures also sent ships to that harbor. It was like that thought hadn't occurred to them at all. Were they trying to fool the reader? Then that sure only works to fool very stupid and unlawful readers, doesn't it? Was it put out by a government office in Taldor telling people what they're supposed to think? Maybe, but even then, you'd think - they should at least bother to lie about that, about no other prefectures sending ships to that harbor - if you don't include the probabilities of other prefectures sending ships to that harbor, it's like - you're not even bothering to argue, you might as well print the whole chapter just saying 'Whitemarch did it' and it would say the same thing -"
"Nothing we've thought in Golarion up until this point has been remotely Lawful. We've been talking gibberish from the standpoint of any Lawful outsiders trying to listen to anything we say."
"And it's not just about the big things that are in history books, it's like - looking into the dining hall to see the food there - it would look and smell the same with a Major Illusion, the reason you believe you're actually going to find food there, is because how unlikely it is that anybody would bother to cast Major Illusion on the dining hall, how normal it is for there to be food there, it's not that the sight and smell of food is overpowering evidence that there's no illusion, it's no evidence at all against the illusion, it's just that the illusion was very unlikely to start and stays unlikely after you see the evidence."
"With Manohar's headband on I could see it, there was like - I could see the structure of the Law overlaid on things, not always, not constantly, because I had no practice, but when I considered any one step of reasoning I could see it there - I could see how the Law was supposed to work, and that my own thoughts weren't fitting into the framework, and I didn't have enough time to correct them all, but I could see how everything I was thinking was completely wrong in the light of that -"
"We all know already, because Keltham already showed us, how, if something's only a hundredth as likely as something else, you need to see something that's one hundred times more likely, given that thing, in order to believe it."
"So the thing is - I'm not sure how to say this, it's hard to convey, what I was seeing with the headband on - that's like - the equivalent of logic, but governing the things that people usually argue about. It's, the equivalent of which conclusions follow from which premises, for things that aren't true across all worlds. It's why Keltham complains that our books don't make any sense. The books say, this thing happened, that isn't all that unlikely, and they don't say how likely it is in other worlds or prove it's less likely there, and then the book says, well, therefore you must be in this world. The book he's reading doesn't even put a probability on that - just jumps there - even with the headband off, I took out a book, and tried to read it the way it must have read to Keltham -"
"You need, depending on how you look at it, two or three pieces of information, to feed into a Lawful reasoning step that goes from observing something, to a probable conclusion about it. You need to know how relatively likely two theories seemed to be, compared to each other, before the evidence - I'm not sure where the very first probabilities come from before there's any evidence at all, but don't tell me yet, Keltham, I want to see if I can get that on my own - and you need to know how much probability both of those theories put, on something you saw. In principle you just have to know, how much more likely the sight is, in one case, than in the other, but I don't see how you'd often end up knowing the ratio without knowing the pieces -"
"When I was hoping I could calm down after taking off the artifact headband, I took a random history book in our new library, and flipped through until I got somewhere interesting at all. It was about the assassination of the Prefect of Tandak fifty years ago. The author argued that the assassin probably came from Whitemarch because of which gate they'd used to enter the city, which is the gate you'd use if you arrived at a harbor that ships from Whitemarch use, and the author didn't say anything about whether any other prefectures also sent ships to that harbor. It was like that thought hadn't occurred to them at all. Were they trying to fool the reader? Then that sure only works to fool very stupid and unLawful readers, doesn't it? Was it put out by a government office in Taldor telling people what they're supposed to think? Maybe, but even then, you'd think - they should at least bother to lie about that, about no other prefectures sending ships to that harbor - if you don't include the probabilities of other prefectures sending ships to that harbor, it's like - you're not even bothering to argue, you might as well print the whole chapter just saying 'Whitemarch did it' and it would say the same thing -"
"Nothing we've thought in Golarion up until this point has been remotely Lawful. We've been talking gibberish from the standpoint of any Lawful outsiders trying to listen to anything we say."
"And it's not just about the big things that are in history books, it's like - looking into the dining hall to see the food there - it would look and smell the same with a Major Illusion, the reason you believe you're actually going to find food there, is because how unlikely it is that anybody would bother to cast Major Illusion on the dining hall, how normal it is for there to be food there, it's not that the sight and smell of food is overpowering evidence that there's no illusion, it's no evidence at all against the illusion, it's just that the illusion was very unlikely to start and stays just as unlikely after you see the evidence."
"With Manohar's headband on I could see it, there was like - I could see the structure of the Law overlaid on things, not always, not constantly, because I had no practice, but when I considered any one step of reasoning I could see it there - I could see how the Law was supposed to work, and that my own thoughts weren't fitting into the framework, and I didn't have enough time to correct them all, but I could see how everything I was thinking was completely wrong in the light of that -"
"We all know already, because Keltham already showed us, how, if something's only a hundredth as likely as something else, you need to see something that's one hundred times more likely, given that thing, in order to believe it."
"So the thing is - I'm not sure how to say this, it's hard to convey, what I was seeing with the headband on - that's like - the equivalent of logic, but governing the things that people usually argue about. It's, the equivalent of which conclusions follow from which premises, for things that aren't true across all worlds. It's why Keltham complains that our books don't make any sense. The books say, this thing happened, that isn't all that unlikely, and they don't say how likely it is in other worlds or prove it's less likely there, and then the book says, well, therefore you must be in this world. The book he's reading doesn't even put a probability on that - just jumps there - even with the headband off, I took out a book, and tried to read it the way it must have read to Keltham -"
"You need, depending on how you look at it, two or three pieces of information, to feed into a Lawful reasoning step that goes from observing something, to a probable conclusion about it. You need to know how relatively likely two theories seemed to be, compared to each other, before the evidence - I'm not sure where the very first probabilities come from before there's any evidence at all, but don't tell me yet, Keltham, I want to see if I can get that on my own - and you need to know how much probability both of those theories put, on something you saw. In principle you just have to know, how much more likely the sight is, in one case, than in the other, but I don't see how you'd often end up knowing the ratio without knowing the pieces -"
"When I was hoping I could calm down after taking off the artifact headband, I took a random history book in our new library, and flipped through until I got somewhere interesting at all. It was about the assassination of the Prefect of Tandak fifty years ago. The author argued that the assassin probably came from Whitemarch because of which gate they'd used to enter the city, which is the gate you'd use if you arrived at a harbor that ships from Whitemarch use, and the author didn't say anything about whether any other prefectures also sent ships to that harbor. It was like that thought hadn't occurred to them at all. Were they trying to fool the reader? Then that sure only works to fool very stupid and unLawful readers, doesn't it? Was it put out by a government office in Taldor telling people what they're supposed to think? Maybe, but even then, you'd think - they should at least bother to lie about that, about no other prefectures sending ships to that harbor - if you don't include the probabilities of other prefectures sending ships to that harbor, it's like - you're not even bothering to argue, you might as well print the whole chapter just saying 'Whitemarch did it' and it would say the same thing -"
"Nothing we've thought in Golarion up until this point has been remotely Lawful. We've been talking gibberish from the standpoint of any Lawful outsiders trying to listen to anything we say."
"And it's not just about the big things that are in history books, it's like - looking into the dining hall to see the food there - it would look and smell the same with a Major Illusion, the reason you believe you're actually going to find food there, is because how unlikely it is that anybody would bother to cast Major Illusion on the dining hall, how normal it is for there to be food there, it's not that the sight and smell of food is overpowering evidence that there's no illusion, it's no evidence at all against the illusion, it's just that the illusion was very unlikely to start and stays just as unlikely after you see the evidence."
"With the artifact headband on I could see it, there was like - I could see the structure of the Law overlaid on things, not always, not constantly, because I had no practice, but when I considered any one step of reasoning I could see it there - I could see how the Law was supposed to work, and that my own thoughts weren't fitting into the framework, and I didn't have enough time to correct them all, but I could see how everything I was thinking was completely wrong in the light of that -"
"We all know already, because Keltham already showed us, how, if something's only a hundredth as likely as something else, you need to see something that's one hundred times more likely, given that thing, in order to believe it."
"So the thing is - I'm not sure how to say this, it's hard to convey, what I was seeing with the headband on - that's like - the equivalent of logic, but governing the things that people usually argue about. It's, the equivalent of which conclusions follow from which premises, for things that aren't true across all worlds. It's why Keltham complains that our books don't make any sense. The books say, this thing happened, that isn't all that unlikely, and they don't say how likely it is in other worlds or prove it's less likely there, and then the book says, well, therefore you must be in this world. The book he's reading doesn't even put a probability on that - just jumps there - even with the headband off, when I took out a book and tried to read it, I realized the way it must have read to Keltham -"
"You need, depending on how you look at it, two or three pieces of information, to feed into a Lawful reasoning step that goes from observing something, to a probable conclusion about it. You need to know how relatively likely two theories seemed to be, compared to each other, before the evidence - I'm not sure where the very first probabilities come from before there's any evidence at all, but don't tell me yet, Keltham, I want to see if I can get that on my own - and you need to know how much probability both of those theories put, on something you saw. In principle you just have to know, how much more likely the sight is, in one case, than in the other, but I don't see how you'd often end up knowing the ratio without knowing the pieces -"
"When I was hoping I could calm down after taking off the artifact headband, I took a random history book in our new library, and flipped through until I got somewhere interesting at all. It was about the assassination of the Prefect of Tandak fifty years ago. The author argued that the assassin probably came from Whitemarch because of which gate they'd used to enter the city, which is the gate you'd use if you arrived at a harbor that ships from Whitemarch use, and the author didn't say anything about whether any other prefectures also sent ships to that harbor or who else used that gate. It was like that thought hadn't occurred to them at all. Were they trying to fool the reader? Then that sure only works to fool very stupid and unLawful readers, doesn't it? Was it put out by a government office in Taldor telling people what they're supposed to think? Maybe, but even then, you'd think - they should at least bother to lie about that, about no other prefectures sending ships to that harbor - if you don't include the probabilities of other prefectures sending ships to that harbor, it's like - you're not even bothering to argue, you might as well print the whole chapter just saying 'Whitemarch did it' and it would say the same thing -"
"Nothing we've thought in Golarion up until this point has been remotely Lawful. We've been talking gibberish from the standpoint of any Lawful outsiders trying to listen to anything we say."
"And it's not just about the big things that are in history books, it's like - looking into the dining hall to see the food there - it would look and smell the same with a Major Illusion, the reason you believe you're actually going to find food there, is because how unlikely it is that anybody would bother to cast Major Illusion on the dining hall, how normal it is for there to be food there, it's not that the sight and smell of food is overpowering evidence that there's no illusion, it's no evidence at all against the illusion, it's just that the illusion was very unlikely to start and stays just as unlikely after you see the evidence."
"With the artifact headband on I could see it, there was like - I could see the structure of the Law overlaid on things, not always, not constantly, because I had no practice, but when I considered any one step of reasoning I could see it there - I could see how the Law was supposed to work, and that my own thoughts weren't fitting into the framework, and I didn't have enough time to correct them all, but I could see how everything I was thinking was completely wrong in the light of that -"
