Ben Goertzel writes:
> So, in my view, we are faced with a couple different ways of introducing
> the arbitrary assumptions needed to justify induction:
> 1) make an arbitrary assumption that the apparently real physical
> universe is real
> 2) make an arbitrary assumption that simpler hypotheses are better,
> where simplicity is judged by some fixed universal computing system
> There is no scientific (i.e. inductive or deductive) way to choose
> between these.  From a human perspective, the choice lies outside the
> domain of science and math; it's a metaphysical or even ethical choice.

But is there a way to test these?  Could we make different predictions
on the basis of these assumptions, and then reject one or the other
based on our observations?

Hal Finney

Reply via email to