On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would > consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used > to empirically test theories assumes this unity. If you observe X and you > want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your > theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. >
(I suspect some people would consider it a big price not to have a unified self for other reasons, too!) I can't see how it's worse for your theory to say that your instruments "will record X and not X" as opposed to saying they "will record X or not X, but we don't know which". The former explanation says there will be apparent but explicable randomness, the latter says there will be intrinsic and inexplicable randomness. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
