Russell Standish wrote:
I raised this very issue in Why Occams Razor, and came to the
conclusion that the only satisfactory interpreter is the observer
itself.
And so the question resumes into 'what is the observer itself'.
I propose the answer 'the self-referentially sound Lobian machine'
Bruno, before we get phased out: you quoted Russell:
I raised this very issue in Why Occams Razor, and came to the
conclusion that the only satisfactory interpreter is the observer
itself
then you write very smart thoughts (like: Modelising near possibilities
by consistent extensions (UD
Charles Goodwin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On the other hand I can't see how FIN is supposed to work, either. I
*think* the argument runs something like this...
Even if you have just had, say, an atom bomb dropped on you, there's
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you can't apply any sort of statistical argument to your own experience
unless you assume that you're a typical observer. But if you do that you're
just assuming the result you want.
Not so. You don't assume you're typical exactly, just that you are
4 matches
Mail list logo
