More generally: this "measurability" bugs me. One has first to choose a
measure to compare with. This is a measurable item, for sure. If our
scientific agnosticism prevents us from finding such comparative measurable
item, the "thing" becomes non-measurable - in our ongoing terms, till
tomorrow, when we may find a suitable comparative (measurable) item in our
further evolution of our cognitive inventory.
I rather don't go into relative concepts. Call it 'axiom'? Is an axiom
holding in time, or do we evolve in explaining it and so it stops being an
----- Original Message -----
From: "smitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 8:40 AM
> The existence of non-measurable sets is a consequence of the Axiom of
> It would therefore be interesting to know which Axioms are used by Bruno.
> John Mikes wrote:I believe, if a conceptual statement (a true one) is in
> conflict with a
> I vote for the inadequacy of the theory.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "smitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 10:30 AM
> Subject: Re: on formally describable universes and measures
> > Bruno wrote: ''The probabilities are defined on infinite
> > (continuous) set of infinite histories.''
> > Isn't this in conflict with measure theory, because one would expect
> > sets would be non-measurable?
> > Saibal