> I’m likely just getting it the way I want to, cause it seems equivalent to me
Really? I can't see how a good faith reading would lead you to think knowing the outcome of a situation having seen that situation and outcome before is in any way congruent with being able to predict an unseen situation given information strictly from before that situation.
I don't really see why I would respond further, that's pretty entry-level logic.
That’s unfortunate, cause I’d like you to reason about a “similar oracle” part, as if my first sentence wasn’t there to annoy you. Because the further text explains it not based on an equivalent premise, but on a contradiction in further reasoning. Makes me feel you ignored that part for some reason.
Really? I can't see how a good faith reading would lead you to think knowing the outcome of a situation having seen that situation and outcome before is in any way congruent with being able to predict an unseen situation given information strictly from before that situation.
I don't really see why I would respond further, that's pretty entry-level logic.