I tried to read that article, but it makes no sense to me at all. Can you explain in plain English why it should follow from the fact that there are unknown truths that are, in principle at least, knowable, that all truths are known?

1+1=2 can be seen as the definition of 2, and I am not sure that definitions count as facts. — Olivier5

There are countless quantities that sum to 2, so '1+1=2' cannot be the definition of 2. You might say it is the primary instance of 2, or something like that, I suppose.

No one has to wonder whether you were kidding or musing or expressing your degree of confidence; in these circumstances, that is unambiguously a bet(1). — Srap Tasmaner

But nobody has to resolve this for there to be a fact of the matter regarding it. It's basic theory of mind that each of us knows things the other has no clue about, but it's kind of perverse to suppose that if you don't know a thing, there cannot be a fact about it. We often have to revise what we consider to be facts as we get new information. When we do so, it's a bit ridiculous to propose that it's the facts that are changing.

The magician tricked me into thinking the red ball was under the middle cup. But when he showed me it wasn't, I don't believe he created a red ball ex nihilo as he lifted the cup... I simply revise my beliefs to the point that I consider it a fact that there was no ball under the cup at the time at which I thought it was a fact that there was one under it. I have to believe facts and what I consider to be facts are distinct things, or I will never survive a magic show.

But nobody has to resolve this for there to be a fact of the matter regarding it. It's basic theory of mind that each of us knows things the other has no clue about, but it's kind of perverse to suppose that if you don't know a thing, there cannot be a fact about it. We often have to revise what we consider to be facts as we get new information. When we do so, it's a bit ridiculous to propose that it's the facts that are changing. — InPitzotl

I'm first going to state your worry as I understand it, then answer -- if I've just misunderstood, then at least that will be clear.

My position, as you see it, is this:
(a) someone has to know you've made a bet(1) for there to be one;
(b) which means if no one knows it, then there isn't one, it's not a fact;
(c) and thus once they know about it, somehow their knowledge brings the fact about, which is crazy because it was the action of the bidder that brought about the fact of an offer having been made.

I hope I've understood you correctly.

Here's how I would explain what's going on here. We're not talking about just any sort of action, or just any sort of speech act, but specifically about the making of a binding offer, what we're calling a bet(1). So I'm only looking at what's needed for such an offer to have been made.

The simplest thing to say would be that you have not succeeded in making an offer if the person you want to accept the offer doesn't know you made one. (Only talking now about situations much like this one, an ephemeral offer made face-to-face -- no filing paperwork with a third party or something.)

That's all I had in mind here:

That's the whole point of formalizing these things, so that everyone can know when a binding offer has been made. — Srap Tasmaner

And this is what you want. Your offer is genuine, meaning you want someone to accept, so you want them to know you've made an offer.

Of course, you're no more a mind reader than anyone else, so whether they know or not isn't a fact directly available to you. We could imagine a formal fix for this, say, having people repeat your bid back to you so you know they heard you and know what your bid is. But would we also need you to say what they said back to them to confirm that what they said agreed? Yuck. It would never stop.

Instead, just as the circumstances of playing bridge and following its conventions provide people guarantees about what you mean by what you say (that you're serious, using words in the standard way and so on), you are also entitled to an expectation that you will be understood and that everyone will know what you've bid.

What if someone doesn't hear? You could stand on your rights and refuse to repeat yourself, but remember that your goal is not just to say certain words but to make an offer. If they inform you, in so many words, that they do not know what offer you have made, you cannot consider your effort successful. Now it's no longer a matter of presuming they know, but of being informed that they definitely do not; under those circumstances you have to conclude that you have failed to make an offer, even though you said what you wanted to.

So in a sense you're right, the knowledge of the audience does come into it, but that's not a general point, it's only a point about an offer made by one person to another. Until both parties know about the offer, it has not been successfully made.

My position, as you see it, is this: — Srap Tasmaner

No, that's wrong. I don't know your exact position. But I do know you said this:

(M) I don't consider that offer, absent a way of verifying your virtual signature, a fact. — Srap Tasmaner

...and this:

(N) No one has to wonder whether you were kidding or musing or expressing your degree of confidence; — Srap Tasmaner

So this isn't really what my assumptions of your position are:

My position, as you see it, is this:
(a) someone has to know you've made a bet(1) for there to be one;
(b) which means if no one knows it, then there isn't one, it's not a fact;
(c) and thus once they know about it, somehow their knowledge brings the fact about, which is crazy because it was the action of the bidder that brought about the fact of an offer having been made. — Srap Tasmaner

It's not that "someone has to know [I've] made a bet(1)" so much as it is that you explicitly said you don't consider a bet(1) ("offer") to be a fact absent something you called "a way of verifying" something you called a"virtual signature".

Whatever "virtual signature" means to you, it's some mental state I have, per my reading of (N). What I'm presuming is that these two are connected... that you don't consider my bet(1) to be a fact because you cannot verify my "virtual signature" which is some mental state only I have access to (ala "kidding" or "musing" or "expressing ... degree of confidence"). The implication appears to be that a offer would be a bet if I "meant" it, but that can't be a fact even if I did because you can't verify that I meant it.

Incidentally, I'll bring this up now... it's been bugging me for a while. I think you're distracting yourself with the contract business... bets can be contracts, but bets are not fundamentally contracts... rather, they are fundamentally games. More precisely, bets are things you win or lose. The thing you bet on defines the win condition. The wager is simply an add-on to give a penalty and/or reward for winning or losing.

Hence, "if you cut my grass I'll pay you $20" is not a bet, despite being a type of contract, because there's no win/lose condition here. Likewise "I bet Jerry will be late to work today" is a bet but not a contract.

but specifically about the making of a binding offer, what we're calling a bet(1) — Srap Tasmaner

No, a bet(2) is binding; a bet(1) need not be. When South bid two no-trump, that's a bet(1); South is offering to play a game of no-trump with a win condition of scoring 8 tricks. But it's not binding until after West, North, and East all pass.

Were West to say three clubs instead of passing, that bet(1)--the offered game... the offer to play the next hand as no trump with a win condition of scoring 8 tricks--would be off the table. If North, East, and South proceed to pass in this case, West would be bound to play a game with clubs as trumps, with a win condition of scoring 9 tricks.

that you can state a fact without any observation to back it up. If Leonardo was gay, that is a fact. If Leonardo was not gay, that is a fact. We have no way of knowing which is the fact; and that is a fact — Janus

We're going around in circles. The only real fact here -- the way I understand the word -- is about your ignorance of Leonardo's sexual orientation.

If you confine the meaning of 'fact' to one of its common usages; i.e.true statements, then of course it will only be statements that are facts or not. If you allow for ... facts as actualities... — Janus

I do indeed restrict the meaning of 'fact' to statements known to be true. I believe using it for pretty much anything out there ("actualities") is simply improper.

2 is what you arrive at when you add 1 and 1. It is the simplest definition of 2 that I know of.

I do indeed restrict the meaning of 'fact' to statements known to be true. I believe using it for pretty much anything out there ("actualities") is simply improper. — Olivier5

Improper how? The difference between "known to be true" and "actuality" is that the former appeals to my mental states and the latter does not. The latter treatment is much more pragmatic precisely because it unbinds factuality from my mental states. For example, this allows me to talk about yesterday, when I mistakenly thought X was a fact and the idea of Y did not even occur to me, in such a manner that I consider (with hindsight) X to have not been a fact yesterday and Y to have been a fact yesterday.

The latter treatment is much more pragmatic precisely because it unbinds factuality from my mental states. For example, this allows me to talk about yesterday, when I mistakenly thought X was a fact and the idea of Y did not even occur to me, in such a manner that I consider (with hindsight) X to have not been a fact yesterday and Y to have been a fact yesterday. — InPitzotl

That's one way to go about it. Another is to consider that Y was true yesterday, even though I didn't know it for a fact, i.e, use the concept of truth. I can envisage that it was always true that life on this planet was carbon-based. But to say it was a fact during the cambrian, when nobody knew what carbon was, rings improper to my ear. It was true but it was not yet a fact.

But to say it was a fact during the cambrian, when nobody knew what carbon was, rings improper to my ear. — Olivier5

I'm not sure why. My car won't start... I would like to be able to say there's some fact of the matter that explains why it won't start. It doesn't seem helpful at all to consider whether there exists a person who knows that or not.

I don't see any problem here. Nobody was around during the Cambrian era. But Carbon has always had 6 protons. So "Carbon had 6 protons in the Cambrian era" is true, and "In the Cambrian era, it was considered a fact that Carbon atoms have 6 protons" is false. The lack of people in the Cambrian era doesn't restrict people living in the year 2021 from talking about things; it just implies that people in the Cambrian era cannot talk about things (because there were no such people).

Incidentally, I'll bring this up now... it's been bugging me for a while. I think you're distracting yourself with the contract business... bets can be contracts, but bets are not fundamentally contracts... rather, they are fundamentally games. More precisely, bets are things you win or lose. The thing you bet on defines the win condition. The wager is simply an add-on to give a penalty and/or reward for winning or losing. — InPitzotl

Suppose the Lakers and the Celtics are playing tonight. Now suppose I agree to pay you $5 if the Celtics win, and you agree to pay me $5 if the Lakers win.

Tonight, at the appointed time, the Lakers and the Celtics will be playing a game; that game will conclude at some point with one team having won and the other having lost. The Lakers and the Celtics will compete. You and I are not competing. We have simply agreed to take certain actions -- one paying the other what is owed -- based on the outcome of an event. That's my view.

You say we are playing a game of our own, that we are competing and that one of us will win the game and one will lose. How do we play? If I say, "I'll bet you five bucks the Lakers win," are we playing now? Was my saying that the first move of the game? If you say, "Fuck off," is the game over? Cancelled maybe.

Anyway, it's not that kind of game. We could continue to negotiate the wager, but that's just an add on, no more a part of the game itself than the medal you receive for winning a race. But how do we play? Where's the competition? After the Lakers-Celtics game has concluded, one of us will turn out to have been right and one of us wrong. --- Actually, our beliefs don't even enter into it. It doesn't matter what method I used to pick which team to bet on: I could do careful analysis, flip a coin, add up the number of letters in the names of the players, it doesn't matter. What matters is that I say, "The Lakers will win" and you say "The Celtics will win" and one of us will turn out to have said something true and the other something false; one of us will have stated a fact, and the other not.

So we compete by assigning differing truth values to a statement such as "The Lakers will win." You win if you assigned the correct truth value. This is my understanding of your view of betting. And on this view, other people aren't really necessary, and the circumstances are irrelevant. All of that is to do with rewards and penalties that we might add on. Betting is simply assigning a truth value to a statement of as-yet-unknown truth. Maybe you never even find out if you were right, never find out if you won. Doesn't matter. If you have assessed some statement as true or false before knowing whether it is, you have made a bet.

I won't argue that we don't use the word "bet" in ways awfully close to this -- I do -- and for very good reason, namely that what I've described here is indeed very closely related to betting. But it's not betting, it's predicting. Betting "proper" is making a prediction with stakes. You can sit at your desk wadding up failed proofs and betting that you sink them in the waste-paper basket -- but those aren't really bets; those are predictions.

One last point. To say that I win the game by my prediction being right is just to say that my prediction was right. Competing at "being right" doesn't add anything. It's like saying saying the Lakers and the Celtics compete at "winning a basketball game" and whoever wins the game, wins.

So we compete by assigning differing truth values to a statement — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, that's the general idea. But again, it's a game that you win or lose.

The Lakers and the Celtics will compete. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. They are playing a scheduled basketball game.

You and I are not competing. — Srap Tasmaner

I think what you mean to say is that we're not playing basketball. But we are indeed competing. There's a winner of the bet and a loser of the bet. If I win, you lose; if you win, I lose. That's a competition.

We have simply agreed to take certain actions -- one paying the other what is owed -- based on the outcome of an event. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think this cuts to the idea of what a bet is. Suppose Joe needs $10 and offers to wash my dishes to earn it. I tell Joe, "sorry, I only have $5, and I just bet on the Celtics game with Srap. Tell you what, though. If the Celtics win, I'll let you wash my dishes for $10." Despite what Joe and I have being conditioned on the same actions and events our bet is conditioned on, Joe and I do not have a bet... it's simply a conditional contract.

How do we play? If I say, "I'll bet you five bucks the Lakers win," are we playing now? — Srap Tasmaner

Actually, yes, we are. But in our discussion we just brought up two senses of the word bet... bet(1) and bet(2), and the game you're talking about here is neither a bet(1) nor a bet(2). Back to the bridge analogy, the entire bidding process is part of the game. When South says two no-trump, that's a bet(1). There's no bet(2) until bidding is complete. But the bidding process in itself is "betting", and that's a game. When you and I are deciding which team to bet on and what to wager, we are "betting" and that's a game in the same sense.

Actually, our beliefs don't even enter into it. — Srap Tasmaner

Correct.

But it's not betting, it's predicting. Betting "proper" is making a prediction with stakes. — Srap Tasmaner

So close! A prediction is not the same thing as a bet. A prediction is either true or false, but a bet is either won or lost. When you bet on a prediction, you're adding something personal. Suddenly it's not just a matter of some X being true or false; it's about you, winning if X is true; and you, losing if X is false. Even if it's just a token win, that's a stake, and it's precisely that that makes a bet and a prediction distinct.

We're going around in circles. The only real fact here -- the way I understand the word -- is about your ignorance of Leonardo's sexual orientation. — Olivier5

It's not my ignorance; no one knows what Leonardo's sexual orientation was. I believe there is a fact of the matter, though, whereas you don't; so we do disagree, and quite profoundly, despite your earlier denials.

I do indeed restrict the meaning of 'fact' to statements known to be true. I believe using it for pretty much anything out there ("actualities") is simply improper. — Olivier5

Yes, I was already aware that you don't acknowledge the synonymy of 'fact' with 'actuality' despite its being as common a usage as the other.

It doesn't bother me that you rule out that usage despite that I cannot see any good reason for it; but at least now it must have become clear to you that we disagree.

2 is what you arrive at when you add 1 and 1. It is the simplest definition of 2 that I know of. — Olivier5

It's also what you arrive at when you add -1 and 3, -2 and 4, half plus half plus half plus half and so on, but I agree it is the most basic and concrete, so

You might say it is the primary instance of 2, or something like that, I suppose. — Janus

I suppose I could have said that 1+1=2 is the empirical instance of 2, because if we have two objects in front us of we can easily see that, taken together, the single objects are two.

The example of 1+1=2 is just that: an example of a supposed "mathematical fact". I have showed that such facts are assumed or derived from assumed axioms. Their truth value is therefore arbitrarily chosen. There are systems of numeration where 1+1=10.

I believe there is a fact of the matter, though, — Janus

What if he had no sexual orientation? What if he was asexual or pansexual or zoophile? In these cases Leonardo was neither gay nor straight.

You see? The problem with your attitude to facts is you tend to box them in your imagination before they even appear phenomenologically. Doing so is dangerous, it assumes a lot, that could turn out false. Your definition of facts gives you a false certainty.

Yes, I was already aware that you don't acknowledge the synonymy of 'fact' with 'actuality' despite its being as common a usage as the other. — Janus

If you have an example of a common usage of the word 'fact' as 'unknown actualities', I'm interested. I never saw it used this way.

I think it opens the door to abuse, to the word being used to describe pretty much anything. It is also confusing the concept of fact with the concept of objective truth, and generally I believe that words have distinct meanings and that one should not confuse them. What you are talking about is truth.

I don't understand why you have chosen to address something I haven't actually claimed; that it is a fact that 1+1=2, rather than admitting that we disagree about the common meaning(s) or usages of the word 'fact'.

We disagree, as per the example, about whether there is a fact of the matter as to whether Leonardo was gay; and that disagreement is precisely on account of the fact that you don't allow for the definition of a fact as a state of affairs.

The conceptual sameness of truth and fact is demonstrated in common usage. It can easily be shown by the fact that "it is true that" and "it is a fact that" mean exactly the same thing. You are free to reject that usage for yourself, of course, but you haven't presented any good reason for such a rejection.

What if he had no sexual orientation? What if he was asexual or pansexual or zoophile? In these cases Leonardo was neither gay nor straight. — Olivier5

That doesn't matter because even though we can't know (observe as you put it) the situation vis a vis Leonardo's sex life or lack of it, if he was neither gay nor straight, then it is a fact that he was so.

If you have an example of a common usage of the word 'fact' as 'unknown actualities', I'm interested. I never saw it used this way. — Olivier5

There is an example right above. It is a fact that Leonardo was either gay, straight, or asexual, even though it is unknown which.

You see? The problem with your attitude to facts is you tend to box them in your imagination before they even appear phenomenologically. Doing so is dangerous, it assumes a lot, that could turn out false. Your definition of facts gives you a false certainty. — Olivier5

That is not correct, in fact it is backwards; rather my (and the common usage's) allowance for the existence of unknown facts allows for uncertainty; it allows that facts do not depend on our certainties. What we take to be facts may turn out not to be.

It is also confusing the concept of fact with the concept of objective truth, and generally I believe that words have distinct meanings and that one should not confuse them. What you are talking about is truth. — Olivier5

Truth and fact are synonymous, in both usages of the word fact. Actually if anything the idea of truth is more commonly applicable only to statements; truths are not so often equated to actualities, but to statements about actualities. It is the less common alethic idea of truth that equates with actuality, but even there only with actuality as it is revealed to us, not with "hidden" actualities..

So we can say both that the cat on the mat is a fact and that it is a fact that the cat is on the mat; the first showing the 'actuality' notion of fact and the latter the propositional notion. It is not so common to say that the cat on the mat is a truth or is true, but it is common to say that it is true that the cat is on the mat. But in any case, if someone said the cat on the mat is true, we would know what she meant. Also the situation may be quite different in other languages; and I am only addressing what I know to be common usages in English.

Language is sloppy and meanings are not always clearcut

My car won't start... I would like to be able to say there's some fact of the matter that explains why it won't start. It doesn't seem helpful at all to consider whether there exists a person who knows that or not. — InPitzotl

What doesn't seem helpful to me is to shoehorn the word 'fact' in places where another word would work better. In this case: there ought to be a reason why your car won't start, a cause, some problem with it. That's what I would say to the mechanic, not "there ought to be some fact of the matter about it not starting".

What doesn't seem helpful to me is to shoehorn the word 'fact' in places where another word would work better. — Olivier5

That's weak. None of your alternatives is better in this scenario than "fact of the matter". "Reason why [my] car won't start" is definitely not what is being meant here; sure, there is a reason it doesn't start, but what's being referred to is the fact that that reason is a fact I don't know. "Cause" is the wrong idea... my car doesn't aka does not start. "Problem" is not what's being expressed... there certainly is a "problem", but the same idea applies for "reason"... what's being referred to is the fact that the problem is a fact that I do not know. Think of the term "counterfactual definiteness" as an alias for "fact of the matter" in this scenario... contrast this to something like Bell's Theorem. What's being conveyed is that there's a very specific thing that's wrong with my car... it's a thing that's true about the car's state at the time that I do not know it; it doesn't merely "become true" once we start looking for it. If I were to explain it I would convey this using a fact; a true statement that describes that state. I'm trying to find out what true statement describes that state that conveys why the car does not start. Hypothetically, someone else could know it; hypothetically, and possibly realistically, I could know it the future but it would still be true right now.

Avoiding using the precise word you mean just because you can use another word that is not what you mean is not using a better word; it is exactly the opposite of using the better word.

That's what I would say to the mechanic, not "there ought to be some fact of the matter about it not starting". — Olivier5

I'm not talking to the mechanic; I'm talking with you. You dragged the mechanic in. See above for the idea being conveyed.

Might I suggest it would be better to explain what problem you're talking about here:

But to say it was a fact during the cambrian, when nobody knew what carbon was, rings improper to my ear. — Olivier5

...than to convince me that I meant something I did not in fact mean?

what's being referred to is the fact that the problem is a fact that I do not know. — InPitzotl

What work is the word "fact" doing in this sentence, that would be missing if it wasn't there?

Truth and fact are synonymous, in both usages of the word fact. — Janus

Well then, if there is no difference between them, one of these words is redundant and can be disposed of.

is a fact that 1+1=2, — Janus

In base 2 numeration, 1+1=10.

I want to revisit quickly one of the examples I gave earlier, because there's something odd about it:

We use the same language to challenge each other to contests: "Bet I can beat you to the mailbox" might be met with "You're on!" and the kids race, or with "Loser takes out the trash?" in which case there's now an actual wager being offered, but it's still not a wager until the other says "Deal!" — Srap Tasmaner

First of all, we can compare this to the Lakers-Celtics example:

The Lakers and the Celtics will compete. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. They are playing a scheduled basketball game.

You and I are not competing. — Srap Tasmaner

I think what you mean to say is that we're not playing basketball. But we are indeed competing. There's a winner of the bet and a loser of the bet. If I win, you lose; if you win, I lose. That's a competition. — InPitzotl

No, I really did mean to say we're not competing, because I don't think betting is competing.

When you're competing in a contest, you can make an effort to win (or lose) the contest. What you do while competing at least in part determines the outcome. It is one of the hallmarks of a bet that its outcome is entirely dependent on the outcome of another event, the one you're betting on.

There are two points here. First, you may have the ability to affect the outcome of the event you're betting on, but to do so is universally considered cheating: if I pay one of the players on the Celtics to throw the game, I am cheating. Second, having established a link between two outcomes -- the event we're betting on and who owes who money -- there is nothing I can do to modify that link. This is hard to see clearly, I think, but if this were a contest, I could make an effort to make it more likely that if the Lakers win, you'll owe me, or to make it less likely that if the Celtics win, I'll owe you. I should, if this is contest, be able in some sense to strengthen or weaken the link between the outcome of the event we're betting on and the outcome of our bet. I cannot. Just as I cannot influence the event we're betting on without being a cheat, I cannot upon losing shirk my obligation without being a welcher.

But what about the race to the mailbox? Now that's a curious thing, because there is definitely a contest here, and there is a prize for winning the contest, as there sometimes is. If some other kid had arranged the race and offered the prize -- winner gets to ride my new bike around the block -- we wouldn't have considered calling this a "betting" situation. What makes it feel like a bet, is precisely that the prize has the structure we expect of a bet: the loser acquires an obligation. The agreement reached as to who will acquire an obligation, based on the outcome of the race, is again not something either can influence by racing; it is, once agreed to, set in stone.

In making a bet, you put, by choice, something outside your control: you commit to taking on an obligation, a debt, if you lose. Typically, there is a reciprocal commitment on the other side.

This is the essence of the bet, and what makes it a speech act: it engenders something that counts as a fact, something that is not any longer "up to me", namely, the link between the outcome of an event and someone acquiring an obligation, a debt.

You can, I suppose, say something like this: "If the Lakers win tonight, then I win the bet; if I win the bet, then you owe me $5." For you, the step in the middle, "winning the bet" is the most important; for me, the step in the middle is redundant. The bet is the link between the outcome of the Lakers-Celtics game and the ensuing obligation, and most people just make that link directly: "If the Celtics win tonight, I owe Dave a hundred bucks." This is simply what it means to have a bet on the Lakers-Celtics game. The bet establishes that link, and in some sense is that link; the link between event and obligation exists because we agree that it does. We have, by speaking, added this fact to the world. (There's another curious way of putting this: "If the Lakers win, that means Dave owes me a hundred." Our future obligations are now an aspect of the Lakers-Celtics contest, a property it has only because we say it does.)

A prediction is not the same thing as a bet. A prediction is either true or false, but a bet is either won or lost. When you bet on a prediction, you're adding something personal. Suddenly it's not just a matter of some X being true or false; it's about you, winning if X is true; and you, losing if X is false. Even if it's just a token win, that's a stake, and it's precisely that that makes a bet and a prediction distinct. — InPitzotl

If you know the outcome of an event you're betting on, that's not gambling at all, and most likely you're cheating someone. If the outcome of an event is unknown, then we can only talk about in terms of predictions. There's a funny back and forth here, because betting looks sometimes like an elaboration of predicting: I say I think (or "I bet") the Lakers are going to win tonight, making a prediction; you say, "You wanna put money on that?" offering to add on a wager. But it's also clear that gambling is sometimes itself the goal, and gamblers go looking for things to bet on. Gambling needs both predictability in one sense and unpredictability in another.

If I predict that the Lakers will win, what am I doing? I am not causing the Lakers to win, certainly. I am also not prophesying that the Lakers will win; I am not making a claim to knowledge of the future. A prediction, in the sense that matters here, is simply a truth-apt statement about the future, or a statement that will become truth-apt in the future. Some future events, while unknowable, are extremely predictable: if I watch a leaf falling from a tree, I cannot know that it will hit the ground, and indeed it freakishly might not, but it's behavior is still extremely predictable. These are not the sorts of things we bet on. To make this perfectly clear, gambling deliberately engineers events the outcome of which cannot be predicted. If I know that a leaf has finished falling, that this event is over, I can be almost certain, without looking, that it has hit the ground; if I know that a standard die has finished rolling, I cannot, without looking, even make an intelligent guess about which of its six faces is up.

Predicting is important here, but it's complicated, and betting is not just an elaboration of predicting, something like "predicting + actually caring about the outcome". To look at predicting to understand betting is looking in the wrong direction, inward, toward our beliefs; to understand betting you have to look outward, where an event we do not control will have an outcome that determines our future obligations.

In base 2 numeration, it is a fact that 1+1=10. — Olivier5

Like the t-shirt says:

There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.

(Another nerd favorite: "There are two kinds of people, those who can extrapolate from incomplete data and ...")

There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.

:lol: both are quite good but I prefer this one.

I find your explanation fascinating. Thank you. I never heard of institutional facts versus brute facts before. That language becomes an institutional fact is, for me, a very stimulating thought.

It is one of the hallmarks of a bet that its outcome is entirely dependent on the outcome of another event, the one you're betting on. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, but you can improve your chances if you study the riders and the horses before the bet, right? Then the competition can be who is the best at reading the facts and picking the winner. Have I understood correctly?

Yeah, but you can improve your chances if you study the riders and the horses before the bet, right? Then the competition can be who is the best at reading the facts and picking the winner. Have I understood correctly? — Athena

Of course, but all of that is before you place your bets. In a broad sense, you are competing as a handicapper against other handicappers to make the best prediction. But your analysis has no effect on the outcome of the race; your analysis has no effect on how much money you win or lose. If you continue to study the racing form while the horses are running, you don't improve your chances of winning. Once the bets are placed, everything is beyond your control, as any handicapper will ruefully tell you. Before you've placed your bet, you have accepted no risk and can receive no reward. There is no point at which you can make an effort to improve the chances of a bet you've placed paying off.

what's being referred to is the fact that the problem is a fact that I do not know. — InPitzotl

What work is the word "fact" doing in this sentence, that would be missing if it wasn't there? — Olivier5

Presuming you mean that one, I do the investigation myself. Turns out it's a curious one... there is a blown fuse. It is a fact that there was a blown fuse.