>Bruno, before we get phased out: you quoted Russell:
>"> >I raised this very issue in "Why Occams Razor", and came to the
>> >conclusion that the only satisfactory "interpreter" is the observer
>> >itself"
>then you write very smart thoughts (like: "> Modelising near possibilities
>by consistent extensions (UD accessible)  etc.<"
>
>all, including Occam, reducing the concept of 'all' into the segment we can
>stuff into our mind.

Not "our" mind, but the mind of the universal Turing machine.

>Our limited capabilities are not limiting nature (or
>call it whatever)

Indeed, and provably so for the UTM. it is the logical fate 
of the universal machine to be confront with her non limitizable 
realities. It makes all honest (consistent, sound) universal
machine modest and humble.
At least the UTM can know there is no complete TOE limiting her.

>Our way of talking is not too humble, I can say modestly.

And so I infinitely agree here.

But perhaps you postulate a subtancial nature. I don't.

Bruno

Reply via email to