[extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant

Jef Allbright jef at jefallbright.net
Mon Apr 2 23:18:19 UTC 2007

On 4/2/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> But, maybe I'm wrong. I haven't yet studied number
> theory.

Jeffrey, it's not number theory, but philosophy.  See pages such as
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/> for some background.

Some good minds believe it makes good sense.  My problem with it is
the same as the earlier  disagreement over Occam's Razor.  It
postulates entities unnecessarily and I would argue on an information
theoretic basis that we should prefer a finite but unknown ensemble of
cosmic principles (or "algorithms") to the "existence" of a "platonic
plenum" of an infinity of infinities of abstract entities.

The observation that we are embedded in the very "reality" that we
strive to understand both enables and confounds such speculation.  I
therefore frame all such measures of "truth" in probabilistic terms
while acknowledging that I can never rule out that an unknown but
relevant parameter might turn things around.

- Jef

- Jef

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list