Recent reviews by pillow

This game portrays the self depricating nature of a human, it can be categorized as a psychotomimetic experiment representing a brain's reaction to lysergic acid diethylamide. People have long contemplated the true definition behind the makings of this game, but I think that this game shows what happens when one does not succumb to omphaloskepsis.
Considerable work has been done on the mathematics of this masterpiece. There is trouble even in mathematics right from the start. For one thing, there are two very different definitions of probability that often lead to the same numerical result but which have very different axiomatic developments. One is the frequency definition, where the probability of an event is explicitly defined to be the number of occurrences of the event divided by the total number of trials in which the event could have occurred, in the limit that the latter goes to infinity. While this is a perfectly reasonable definition, it leaves one with a number of serious problems such as the best way to compute the probability of nearly anything from a finite number of trials.
In a word, this is the inference problem. The issue is that there is no entirely satisfactory solution to this dilemma that we can all agree on a priori. There are just too many subjects about which we are ignorant. We have no idea how many balls are in the urn (it may be as low as four, right?) We don't know how many colors of balls the urn might contain besides white, but I can get around this by treating all of them as "non-white" if they're classical balls rather than quantum particle balls with strange statistics (which, alas, exist in tremendous profusion in every atom of existence). We conclude that, even in purely abstract mathematical examples where the term "probably" can be rigorously justified, the underlying assumptions on which a particular computation of probability is based must be specified, and those assumptions are not statements that can be asserted to be "probably" true. Unfortunately, we must conclude that claiming a rational system is probably accurate is just as much nonsense as saying it is inevitably correct or provably false. As I have repeatedly stated, axioms are inherently unprovable assumptions, not self-evident facts. That is, individual viewpoints. That is, hot air, moonshine, and nonsense from your nether regions. Everything else is extrapolated from what we are experiencing right now. My axioms accept, nay, need inferences, thus I have no problem with them. But on the other hand, some have found it difficult to "know" so little, even while they (like us all) went about their daily lives as if they knew much more. This is the pinnacle of ontological debate. I've demonstrated that all metaphysical systems are founded on something that must be unprovably true in order to be true (as it cannot be proven). Any attempt to challenge its correctness (as our dear buddy Putin would have us do) is doomed to failure, and lunacy awaits. It's a madness that's consumed thousands of years of effort from tens of thousands of presidents, each producing their own brand of nonsense in their search for a Philosopher's Stone that will turn the dross uncertainty of an axiomatically reasoned world (with its presumed true but unprovable axioms) into the fool's gold of rational inevitability. We are doomed to exist only via our senses, to know nothing beyond what we are experiencing save by inference, deduction, and reasoning based on unprovable assumptions that may or may not be right, but can never be confirmed.


anyways I'm still waiting for the sex dlc