ABSTRACT
I believe there is some logical slip in Mr Basson’s argument. Since we are admitting a connection between (1) and (2), we may grant that we have a fixed function /(w): u = f ( w )
=p(.(p(T(xl , y i , z 1, t l) /e l) = l)/(p(~\T(x2,y 2, z 2, t 2)/e2) = w)) (i) Then, for any fixed evidence e2, w assumes a definite value, and, consequently, u assumes a definite value, w may or may not assume the value 1. In either case, there seems to be no contradiction.
