>Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.

You are mistaken in believing (I cannot even abide by describing it as percieving/interpreting, it is more akin to wishing or hoping) that I have ever done anything other than interpret your text in any other way.

>Then you should abandon it.

I am not the one professing the false premise. I find it almost too hard to believe you aren't aware you failed to interpret which premise I was referencing. To clarify, it was your premise (unstated, but unavoidable, and by no means rebutted by your accusatory dismissal and semantic gamesmanship) that whether something is true is identical to whether it can be presented as pseudo-code (and, further, that whether you are convinced to believe it, by that effort or any other, is identical to whether it has been objectively (logically) proven).

>You do not actually possess knowledge of all ways in which a system could be rigged.

I do not need that for my position to be sound. You are the one that quantified the "rigging". I merely took your premise to be valid, and explained why it does not support the conclusion you expected it to.

>You are speculating, necessarily.

Indeed, necessarily so: as I seem to constantly have to remind you, all reasoning is speculation. Even the kind that relies on pseudo-code. But, in that way, you are merely speculating (but unnecessarily) that I am speculating, and have not provided any reason to believe my speculation is inaccurate even if your speculation is accurate. When will you abandon these semantic games, iiioiia? You just keep frustrating yourself more and more with every effort, by failing to even supply a coherent disputation of my conjectures.

>They are to some degree,

LOL.

>in that you do not possess omniscient knowledge of what is going on everywhere,

Examining a system doesn't require knowledge of what is going on "everywhere", only within the system. By suggesting that some putative systems are black boxes (but providing no reasoning or analysis to allow us to identify which ones are) you must necessarily be insinuating that the particular (though hypothetic) system being considered is a black box, or you are just babbling. Absolute knowledge of what is going on within the system could be assumed to be essential, yes, but by quantifying the proportion of 'rigging' so precisely (and, I might suggest, minutely) you have forced the idea that such knowledge is available as part of your premise. I simply took you at your word, which is to say, I interpreted your text literally and with a calm mind.

>Agree, but a system does have to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted (which is what is being discussed here). Please do not move the goalposts.

I dispute your idealistic notion, with no movement of any imaginary goalposts necessary. Your assumption that any system can ever or must be 100% reliable is... braindead. A characteristic which is acceptable in pseudo-code, but not actual reasoning.

>Agree!! So then, please: provide us insight into the inner workings of your mind, if you have the nerve.

I do so with every word, despite your increasingly desperate contentions to the contrary. And you, also, like it or not, do the same: with every word you post, you reveal how braindead your reasoning is. It's nothing to be ashamed of; wishing that your thoughts had the precision and consistency of logic, pseudo-code, and computation is endemic in these postmodern times. But it is still an error, and both your reasoning and your attitude would be improved by abandoning it, as it is a vain hope and a dead end, philosophically speaking.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.