>From: "Charles Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Um, OK, I don't want to get into an infinite argument here. I guess we both 
>understand the other's viewpoint. (For the record: I don't see any reason 
>to accept QTI as correct, but think that *if* it is, it would fit in with 
>the available (subjective) observational evidence - that being the point on 
>which we differ.

    Um, no, I still don't understand your view.  I think the point that 
Bayesian reasoning would work with 100% reliability, even though the FIN is 
technically compatible with the evidence, is perfectly clear.  Any reason 
for disagreeing, I have no understanding of.
    It may help you to think of different moments of your life as being 
different observers (observer-moments).  That's really just a matter of 

                         - - - - - - -
               Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
         Physicist  /  Many Worlder  /  Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
         My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Reply via email to