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'.
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-
>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
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo