"I mean, it totally can by the time you're Civilization, but you're not gonna get there for a while.  That's the kind of precise difference you'd run into if you were measuring the difference in exactly how fast time flows at the bottom of a mountain versus the top of a mountain, say, because it turns out that gravity has something to do with time, and gravity is very slightly stronger at the bottom of a mountain."

"And, okay, let me finish responding to some of the previous things."

"You can't literally measure a continuous quantity and get a continuous answer, in fact, because that would correspond to infinite precision and an infinite number of bits in the measurement.  It's also not true that you can only lose at most 1 'bit' on predicting something yes-or-no, for instance, you could predict 'YES' with probability 63/64 and 'NO' at 1/64 and see 'NO' and lose 6 'bits'."

"When it comes to noticing just that the pauses are getting longer and longer, just measuring to the nearest round works for that; you don't need to measure to the nearest second.  Being able to notice the pauses are getting longer, is an argument for measuring the timing at all, because it causes some hypotheses to differentially lose 2s.  It's not an argument for measuring precisely."

"Among the remaining arguments, we have:  An argument that precise claims help by allowing right claims to lose fewer 2s, and wrong claims to lose more.  An argument that, if you don't measure precisely, you can't verify or falsify precise claims.  An argument about how precise measurements can rule out more theories, because if you can see closer than five hundred miles you can distinguish between claims about Egorian and claims about Cheliax."

"Those arguments are all valid, for having been spoken in Taldane.  But can anyone rephrase it more into the language of the Law of Probability, to fit it all into a common framework?"

"I mean, it totally can by the time you're Civilization, but you're not gonna get there for a while.  That's the kind of precise difference you'd run into if you were measuring the difference in exactly how fast time flows at the bottom of a mountain versus the top of a mountain, say, because it turns out that gravity has something to do with time, and gravity is very slightly stronger at the bottom of a mountain."

"And, okay, let me finish responding to some of the previous things."

"You can't literally measure a continuous quantity and get a continuous answer, in fact, because that would correspond to infinite precision and an infinite number of bits in the measurement.  It's also not true that you can only lose at most 1 'bit' on predicting something yes-or-no, for instance, you could predict 'YES' with probability 63/64 and 'NO' at 1/64 and see 'NO' and lose 6 'bits'."

"When it comes to noticing just that the pauses are getting longer and longer, just measuring to the nearest round works for that; you don't need to measure to the nearest second.  Being able to notice the pauses are getting longer, is an argument for measuring the timing at all, because it causes some hypotheses to differentially lose 2s.  It's not an argument for measuring precisely."

"Among the remaining arguments, we have:  An argument that precise claims help by allowing right claims to lose fewer 2s, and wrong claims to lose more.  An argument that, if you don't measure precisely, you can't verify or falsify precise claims.  An argument about how precise measurements can rule out more theories, because if you can see closer than five hundred miles you can distinguish between claims about Egorian and claims about Ostenso."

"Those arguments are all valid, for having been spoken in Taldane.  But can anyone rephrase it more into the language of the Law of Probability, to fit it all into a common framework?"

"I mean, it totally can by the time you're Civilization, but you're not gonna get there for a while.  That's the kind of precise difference you'd run into if you were measuring the difference in exactly how fast time flows at the bottom of a mountain versus the top of a mountain, say, because it turns out that gravity has something to do with time, and gravity is very slightly stronger at the bottom of the mountain."

"And, okay, let me finish responding to some of the previous things."

"You can't literally measure a continuous quantity and get a continuous answer, in fact, because that would correspond to infinite precision and an infinite number of bits in the measurement.  It's also not true that you can only lose at most 1 'bit' on predicting something yes-or-no, for instance, you could predict 'YES' with probability 63/64 and 'NO' at 1/64 and see 'NO' and lose 6 'bits'."

"When it comes to noticing just that the pauses are getting longer and longer, just measuring to the nearest round works for that; you don't need to measure to the nearest second.  Being able to notice the pauses are getting longer, is an argument for measuring the timing at all, because it causes some hypotheses to differentially lose 2s.  It's not an argument for measuring precisely."

"Among the remaining arguments, we have:  An argument that precise claims help by allowing right claims to lose fewer 2s, and wrong claims to lose more.  An argument that, if you don't measure precisely, you can't verify or falsify precise claims.  An argument about how precise measurements can rule out more theories, because if you can see closer than five hundred miles you can distinguish between claims about Egorian and claims about Ostenso."

"Those arguments are all valid, for having been spoken in Taldane.  But can anyone rephrase it more into the language of the Law of Probability, to fit it all into a common framework?"

"I mean, it totally can by the time you're Civilization, but you're not gonna get there for a while.  That's the kind of precise difference you'd run into if you were measuring the difference in exactly how fast time flows at the bottom of a mountain versus the top of a mountain, say, because it turns out that gravity has something to do with time, and gravity is very slightly stronger at the bottom of the mountain."

"And, okay, let me finish responding to some of the previous things."

"You can't literally measure a continuous quantity and get a continuous answer, in fact, because that would correspond to infinite precision and an infinite number of bits in the measurement.  It's also not true that you can only lose at most 1 'bit' on predicting something yes-or-no, for instance, you could predict 'YES' with probability 63/64 and 'NO' at 1/64 and see 'NO' and lose 6 'bits'."

"When it comes to noticing just that the pauses are getting longer and longer, just measuring to the nearest round works for that; you don't need to measure to the nearest second.  Being able to notice the pauses are getting longer, is an argument for measuring the timing at all, because it causes some hypotheses to differentially lose 2s.  It's not an argument for measuring precisely."

"Among the remaining arguments, we have:  An argument that precise claims help by allowing right claims to lose fewer 2s, and wrong claims to lose more.  An argument that, if you don't measure precisely, you can't verify or falsify precise claims.  An argument about how precise measurements can rule out more theories, because if you can see closer than five hundred miles you can distinguish between claims about Egorian and claims about Ostenso."

"Those arguments are all valid, for having been spoken in Taldane.  But can anyone rephrase it more into the language of the Law of Probability, to fit it all into a common framework?  Tier-2s may now answer."

"I mean, it totally can by the time you're Civilization, but you're not gonna get there for a while.  That's the kind of precise difference you'd run into if you were measuring the difference in exactly how fast time flows at the bottom of a mountain versus the top of a mountain, say, because it turns out that gravity has something to do with time, and gravity is very slightly stronger at the bottom of the mountain."

"And, okay, let me finish responding to some of the previous things."

"You can't literally measure a continuous quantity and get a continuous answer, in fact, because that would correspond to infinite precision and an infinite number of bits in the measurement.  It's also not true that you can only lose at most 1 'bit' on predicting something yes-or-no, for instance, you could predict 'YES' with probability 63/64 and 'NO' at 1/64 and see 'NO' and lose 6 'bits'."

"When it comes to noticing just that the pauses are getting longer and longer, just measuring to the nearest round works for that; you don't need to measure to the nearest second.  Being able to notice the pauses are getting longer, is an argument for measuring the timing at all, because it causes some hypotheses to differentially lose 2s.  It's not an argument for measuring precisely."

"Among the remaining arguments, we have:  An argument that precise claims help by allowing right claims to lose fewer 2s, and wrong claims to lose more.  An argument that, if you don't measure precisely, you can't verify or falsify precise claims.  An argument about how precise measurements can rule out more theories, because if you can see closer than five hundred miles you can distinguish between claims about Egorian and claims about Ostenso."

"Those arguments are all valid, for having been spoken in Taldane.  But can anyone rephrase it more into the language of the Law of Probability, to fit it all into a common framework?  Tier-2s may now also answer."

"I mean, it totally can by the time you're Civilization, but you're not gonna get there for a while.  That's the kind of precise difference you'd run into if you were measuring the difference in exactly how fast time flows at the bottom of a mountain versus the top of a mountain."

"And, okay, let me finish responding to some of the previous things."

"You can't literally measure a continuous quantity and get a continuous answer, in fact, because that would correspond to infinite precision and an infinite number of bits in the measurement.  It's also not true that you can only lose at most 1 'bit' on predicting something yes-or-no, for instance, you could predict 'YES' with probability 63/64 and 'NO' at 1/64 and see 'NO' and lose 6 'bits'."

"When it comes to noticing just that the pauses are getting longer and longer, just measuring to the nearest round works for that; you don't need to measure to the nearest second.  Being able to notice the pauses are getting longer, is an argument for measuring the timing at all, because it causes some hypotheses to differentially lose 2s.  It's not an argument for measuring precisely."

"Among the remaining arguments, we have:  An argument that precise claims help by allowing right claims to lose fewer 2s, and wrong claims to lose more.  An argument that, if you don't measure precisely, you can't verify or falsify precise claims.  An argument about how precise measurements can rule out more theories, because if you can see closer than five hundred miles you can distinguish between claims about Egorian and claims about Ostenso."

"Those arguments are all valid, for having been spoken in Taldane.  But can anyone rephrase it more into the language of the Law of Probability, to fit it all into a common framework?  Tier-2s may now also answer."

"I mean, it totally can by the time you're Civilization, but you're not gonna get there for a while.  That's the kind of precise difference you'd run into if you were measuring the difference in exactly how fast time flows at the bottom of a mountain versus the top of a mountain."

"And, okay, let me finish responding to some of the previous things."

"You can't literally measure a continuous quantity and get a continuous answer, in fact, because that would correspond to infinite precision and an infinite number of 'bits' in the measurement.  It's also not true that you can only lose at most 1 'bit' on predicting something yes-or-no, for instance, you could predict YES with probability 63/64 and NO at 1/64 and see NO and lose 6 'bits'."

"When it comes to noticing just that the pauses are getting longer and longer, just measuring to the nearest round works for that; you don't need to measure to the nearest second.  Being able to notice the pauses are getting longer, is an argument for measuring the timing at all, because it causes some hypotheses to differentially lose 2s.  It's not an argument for measuring precisely."

"Among the remaining arguments, we have:  An argument that precise claims help by allowing right claims to lose fewer 2s, and wrong claims to lose more.  An argument that, if you don't measure precisely, you can't verify or falsify precise claims.  An argument about how precise measurements can rule out more theories, because if you can see closer than five hundred miles you can distinguish between claims about Egorian and claims about Ostenso."

"Those arguments are all valid, for having been spoken in Taldane.  But can anyone rephrase it more into the language of the Law of Probability, to fit it all into a common framework?  Tier-2s may now also answer."

"I mean, it totally can help by the time you're Civilization, but you're not gonna get there for a while.  That's the kind of precise difference you'd run into if you were measuring the difference in exactly how fast time flows at the bottom of a mountain versus the top of a mountain."

"And, okay, let me finish responding to some of the previous things."

"You can't literally measure a continuous quantity and get a continuous answer, in fact, because that would correspond to infinite precision and an infinite number of 'bits' in the measurement.  It's also not true that you can only lose at most 1 'bit' on predicting something yes-or-no, for instance, you could predict YES with probability 63/64 and NO at 1/64 and see NO and lose 6 'bits'."

"When it comes to noticing just that the pauses are getting longer and longer, just measuring to the nearest round works for that; you don't need to measure to the nearest second.  Being able to notice the pauses are getting longer, is an argument for measuring the timing at all, because it causes some hypotheses to differentially lose 2s.  It's not an argument for measuring precisely."

"Among the remaining arguments, we have:  An argument that precise claims help by allowing right claims to lose fewer 2s, and wrong claims to lose more.  An argument that, if you don't measure precisely, you can't verify or falsify precise claims.  An argument about how precise measurements can rule out more theories, because if you can see closer than five hundred miles you can distinguish between claims about Egorian and claims about Ostenso."

"Those arguments are all valid, for having been spoken in Taldane.  But can anyone rephrase it more into the language of the Law of Probability, to fit it all into a common framework?  Tier-2s may now also answer."