>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 definition. - - - - - - - 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