On 1/13/2020 2:58 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> You can't accurately match something that /doesn't yet exist to be
>> matched against/.
>
>
> Falsifian then said in a reply to the judgement [1]:
>
>> No objection to TRUE, but I don't think I understand this argument. If
>> the date were in the past instead of the future, could I argue that I
>> can't accurately match something that no longer exists to be matched
>> against? What differentiates past and future here?
I read that as saying past events are fixed, so there's an existing
"objective truth" to compare ("match") the report to (ratifications
notwithstanding), while future events are, by definition, unfixed, so you
can't compare a report about the future with the "true future" because the
"true future" doesn't exist (the time of comparison is taken to be the time
of publication).
