I was kinda wrong.

My theory is a form of probabilism, woops. 

I would like to point out however that in my post "what up with probabilism" i explain what i thought probabilism was:

"Probabilism just isn't explanatory and doesn’t really justify its probabilistic prediction. Why would dividing observed cases by possible cases produce a percentage which is reliable? Fuck knows, I don’t even think they know. Do you know?"

No one corrected me or infact commented at all.

Secondly, I commented on jonos FIRST response that my theory relys on a probabilistic principle.

"yes a probabilistic principle is assumed in both predictions. This principle is the argument stated at the top of my last post... "

The response to which should have been "sam, you silly goose, any theory which relys on a probabilistic principle is probabilism."

This kind of point could have saved us alot of time. Anyway let’s move forward :)

Jonos objection seems to be the contradiction of the following two claims:

1.       'denying probability can be assigned concerning POTENTIAL occurance'

2.       Just because the ACTUAL probabilities are unknown, that does not rule out using probability to pick the option with more possibilities as you say.

By “denying that probability can be assigned to potential occurances” I only mean that the actual probabilities are unknown.

By “using probability to pick the option with more probability” I only mean that my theory applies the probabilistic argument stated initially

I can apply my probabilistic argument to such cases where the actual probabilities are unknown. No contradiction occurs.

I would like to bring your attention to “J: response to S’s rigged die scenario”

You say “All I know is, guessing that it will land on a number higher than 1 contains 5 out of the 6 possible outcomes, while guessing 1 contains 1 out of 6 possible outcomes. Therefore it is more reasonable (you say reasonable, but whether it be reasonable probable, i dont care, take your pick)”

By the same logic can you not say “it is more reasonable to guess that the pattern will continue at least once, than it is reasonable to guess that the pattern will cease”

If so, then the theory works does it not.