>From: "Charles Goodwin" <cgoodwin.domain.name.hidden>
>Um, OK, I don't want to get into an infinite argument here. I guess we both
>understand the other's viewpoint. (For the record: I don't see any reason
>to accept QTI as correct, but think that *if* it is, it would fit in with
>the available (subjective) observational evidence - that being the point on
>which we differ.
Um, no, I still don't understand your view. I think the point that
Bayesian reasoning would work with 100% reliability, even though the FIN is
technically compatible with the evidence, is perfectly clear. Any reason
for disagreeing, I have no understanding of.
It may help you to think of different moments of your life as being
different observers (observer-moments). That's really just a matter of
definition.
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Received on Mon Sep 03 2001 - 21:18:57 PDT