On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
