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?