> 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?

Reply via email to