Re: no need for anthropic reasoning

2001-02-16 Thread juergen
>From Wei Dai, Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:00:23: <<< Sentient beings can follow the same decision procedure used by the oracle. Suppose you are faced with a bet involving a tossed coin. There is no need to consider probabilistic questions like "what is the probability that the coin landed heads?" which w

Re: A FAQ document proposal for this list

2001-02-16 Thread Hal Ruhl
Dear Bruno: OK - I will try your approach. At first I had felt that one could not mount much of a disagreement over whether or not a given word could be found in the archive. However, I now think it better to bite the bullet and go directly to a list of questions. Given the nature of the lis

Re: on formally describable universes and measures

2001-02-16 Thread juergen
This time I'll annotate your entire message to demonstrate how many things I tend to find unclear in your texts. > From: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Juergen wrote (among things): > > >But how to answer an ill-posed question? You promise that "time and > >space will disappear at the end of

Re: no need for anthropic reasoning

2001-02-16 Thread Jacques Mallah
>From: Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >The selection of the proper reference class is a serious problem for >anthropic reasoning. Yes, though there have been suggestions about it. >But perhaps anthropic reasoning is not necessary to >take advantage of a theory of everything. >Consider how an no