Only 99.99%

That is really midnumbing idea. On that principle, does the commenter assume that only 99.99% of rocket scientists believe in rockets?

I would say 0.50.5 is unlikely. 0.5 itself is the problem. The goal of this is not to give you headache, mate. Its the jumping between systems that you wouldn’t call causal. But has everything to be causal just to be useful, interesting and worth a look? I doubt it.

Some munchkin does not sound bad. When and where?

It does depend on what we are trying to achieve and for me the path is more interesting than the result. Life will finally result in death and I am not going to reduce my life to death.

“But we don’t have a “yes or no” issue here”

Does this matter? In my question we do.

“But we’re then guilty of performing a fallacious error, similar to equivocating. We must be speaking about the same thing in order to reach any conclusion.”

Is a conclusion the only thing what this all can be about? Never thought about that questions are more interesting than answers could be? When we always just stick to a pattern of rules and regulations this life will bore us to death one day.. :] This has never been only about results. Or has it?

If 0% = 0 and 100% = 1 and 0 = no and 1 = yes, is 150% more than yes? Or is it maybe yesser than yes?

Percent is just a counting between to extremes but what if we go beyond these extremes? Just a thought. Are scientists those that work in science fields? Or are those using scientific method to be considered scientists in a way as well? If you consider scientists as described in the first place and I do as described in the second and we switch to absolute numbers, then going over 100% with a non-congruent definition is not a problem.

A total of 100% is damn limiting. I dislike numbers and have to ask myself is 150% more than yes? Think about it.