Bernard Peek wrote:
On 26/02/12 22:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bernard Peek wrote:
On 26/02/12 20:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well thats uyouir knowelege limits and I have mine.

I know.

Let's say that if anyone has broken in they have left no trace and
altered nothing. Or I would *know*. Which makes it 'not compromised'

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Hint: there is no such thing as an undetectable change.

I'd like to see evidence for that assertion.

Are you really stupid?

I'm a philosopher. I was hoping that you knew something that I didn't
and I could learn something. It seemed improbable given the ignorance
that you appeared to be displaying but hope springs eternal.


If a change makes no difference to anything, ipso facto, it is not a
change. All changes therefore must make a difference, and are therefore
detectable.

Yes, but as I pointed out in the post to which you replied absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence. You can know that you haven't
detected a change, but you can't know that there is no change. Absence
of a change is not detectable.

It is.