James Higgo wrote:
>If you will stop jumping from 'observation' to 'observer' then you will find
>that this problem does not exist. As nobody here (bar Jacques) is prepared
>to do this, I'm logging off from this boring and pointless debate about
But why for God sake should we stop jumping from observation to observer ?
I agree the problem appears when we do that. But the problem is
interesting and it gives hopes not only to understand the basic reason we
believe in things and universes, but it gives also hope to really derive
the foundation of physics (QM) from the "pythagorician" platonic realm
(the law of numbers).
Why don't you enjoy the hunting of the wabbits ?
It can only enlight the discussion and makes more communicable what you
to grasp in some pure ontological way.