Truth is Just a Rationality Probability Function

Ok just have a theory I want test out on you guys.

I want to see if the outcome I present here will be inevitably possible without using the word if in the conversation, because nobody says 'if' in the scenario you are about to read. Before anybody contributes to this though you have to pick the side you wish to be on (the person you wish to be). So you'll pronounce your blurb with Person A: , or Person B:.

You can be either person A or person B. One of the people is the girl and one of the people is the guy. The only thing that defines the two are the definitions they carry.

And you are not told who person A is or person B, and you are not to define them empirically (meaning you can't blurt out the person's identity), (well you can it just won't mean anything, because you could be lying).

And once the chat between the person A and B is over (say after a couple pages) everybody here then comes to a rational conclusion as to who person A and B are based on the "empirical" evidence being the conversation. Oh and the conversation... this is a philosophy forum:rolleyes:.

The idea is to see that it is really just intellect that determines truth, that empirical truth is really just rational interpretation. So the truth that person A is the girl and person B is the guy (or perhaps its vice versa) is in fact only determined by the measure of thinking you did, and that in an infinite potential to trump the other person's argument as to why the person is the identity you say it is (proving an uncertainty) is never going to make it absolute. There is always going to be a probability in the infinite system.

Oh!.... that means that if the probability becomes more uncertain or harder to predict then the system the subject of the probability has influence on is greater, or sorry... more intrinsic/greater... you get it.

Therefore empirical truths are not purely universal truths because the universal truth implies the truth undertakes an infinite potential (which it cannot).

So I just want to see that my prediction is right (I think its pretty obvious). I believe that even with empirical data to define two subjects and using reason to determine the validity of the two, there can be no way to know for sure, except that this particular scenario is an exception, just because.

Oh and I forgot to mention... this conversation is only experienced as text like we experience the exchange of information here. There is absolutely nothing else. I want to come to further conclusions like how the probability of electron movements are due to the wrong perceptions not giving viable information for empirical subjection. Change the perception and the information changes. The data always remains constant and there to collect, it just can't be all taken in at once when there is an infinite potential of it and only a finite amount of harnessed information from it due to the limiting factor of whatever the contextual process may be.

Anyone can start off the conversation, remember there is always only 2 subjects in this scenario.