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 axiom? John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "smitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 8:40 AM Subject: Axioms?
> The existence of non-measurable sets is a consequence of the Axiom of Choice. > 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 > theory, > I vote for the inadequacy of the theory. > John > ----- 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 that > some > > sets would be non-measurable? > > > > Saibal > > >
