Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Buck_Thorn t1_j699b5b wrote

Reply to comment by eegocentrik in The number of people older than you never increases by Bubbles_The_Mushroom

The census data is not the actual number of people. Even if it were 100% correct, which it isn't, it is only a snapshot of time.

1

eegocentrik t1_j6a5pti wrote

What method would you use to calculate the number of people older than you?

0

Buck_Thorn t1_j6a7zl3 wrote

You're missing the point. There is no need to calculate that. Reality is what reality is. I think maybe you're not understanding the thought.

1

eegocentrik t1_j6ahj4v wrote

I think you are.

You have to know the number to verify, you can't go through life assuming based on Fuzzy-Wuzzy non-practical applications.

The number represents a data point and that data point cannot be verified to be 100% accurate.

If the number is not 100% accurate then a reconciliation could cause the number to increase, thus proving your claim incorrect.

I think you are having a hard time grasping the fact that when applied, your observation falls short. It's okay to be wrong, you just need to revise.

0

Buck_Thorn t1_j6ajr4r wrote

No, you do not need an absolute number. You do not need to know how many people are alive at any given moment to know that "The number of people older than you never increases". There are always fewer unless some are born older than you.

1

eegocentrik t1_j6b0o50 wrote

Yes. Yes you do.

Yes you need to know or you can't prove it.

Please provide evidence for your claim?

1

Buck_Thorn t1_j6b4u44 wrote

Think man... think. Surely you're just yanking my chain now... nobody can be that dense.

1

eegocentrik t1_j6b55zx wrote

I beleive I'm the only one thinking on this, you are just lazily accepting the unpractical notion.

People are of many different densities.

1

Buck_Thorn t1_j6bzkf1 wrote

OK, I admit it. I have been successfully trolled. You can go back under your bridge now.

1