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 accessible) etc.<"
all, including Occam, reducing the concept of 'all' into the segment we can stuff into our mind. Our limited capabilities are not limiting nature (or call it whatever), we just don't comprehend/observe the rest of it. Not even the 'logically possible' part of it. Our way of talking is not too humble, I can say modestly. John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes"; ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor S N I P
