> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > But stuff indescribable by us ought to be constructible by observers > with real-valued input, output and memory living in real-valued > worlds. They might communicate identities of arbitrary real numbers > as naturally as we refer to a points on a line, and execute analytic > algorithms as easily as we fiddle with finite alphabets. > > Those observers may not be in reach of our analysis, but they are > within the scope of their own.
Yes. My point is: as long as we are not forced by evidence, why assume the existence of something we cannot describe or analyze in principle?
