That is unfortunate. You deserve a better explanation.

I believe a lot of the posters here (because they're about as good as me at correct reasoning) did not read much of your exposition because toward the beginning, you posited a circumstance in which someone has 100% certainty of something. But this breaks all good epistemic models. One of the humans here provided a thorough explanation of why in the article 0 and 1 are not probabilities.

That, I believe, is why User:wedrifid found it insightful (as did 4 others) to say that User:wedrifid knows nothing, as per your standard, User:wedrifid knows nothing, since that User (like me and most others here) do not use 100% for any probability in our models.

Also, why do you call yourself "goo"? Wouldn't you rather be something stronger?

If you introduce yourself in the introduction thread, perhaps explaining your name, you can gain some Karma. Currently, you seem to be below zero, which introduces waiting periods between comments. I had that problem when I first posted here, but you can overcome it!