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
