I just wrote, in part: > I'm not sure we should consider an omniscient being as one who > "establishe[s] by a preponderance of the evidence". E knows, beyond > all doubt, without considering any evidence: evidence doesn't come > into it. In fact, eir consideration of any evidence would just muddy > the waters, opening up a possibility of a result that e knows to be > false. Thus, even if there is such a being, arguably "the alleged > infracter can't be established by a preponderance of the evidence to > have committed the infraction", so that you should be considered > forgiven and the CFJ should be judged FALSE.
Lemme be both clearer and more succinct: Such an agent not only *doesn't* consider evidence (as I said above) -- more to the point, e *cannot* establish, *by evidence*, that you rolled a 3. E knows it, but cannot establish it by evidence. Yours, msh210
