Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor

2001-09-15 Thread Marchal
Russell Standish wrote >Marchal wrote: >> >> 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'.

Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor

2001-09-02 Thread Russell Standish
Marchal wrote: > > 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-

Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor

2001-09-01 Thread Marchal
>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

Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor

2001-08-31 Thread jamikes
TECTED]> 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

Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor

2001-08-31 Thread Marchal
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