deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index 4746c89..cfe59dd 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
As a parenthesis, note that until now we restricted the possible world concept several times. The argument below also works with larger possible world concepts as long as those worlds have a few basic properties (e.g. one can make predictions and it can contain intelligent beings) and at the same time it is plausible that our world is such a possible world.  First, let us note that having intelligent beings in an universe likely means that their intelligence is needed to allow them to live in that universe, which likely means that they can have a partial model of the universe. That model does not have to be precise (it could be made of simple rules like \ghilimele{If I pick fruits then I can eat them. If I eat them then I live.}) and it can cover only a small part of their world, but it should predict\footnote{This is the only place where  predict means that the beings can actually say something about the future instead of a theoretical way of making predictions.}  something. Of course, these predictions do not have to be deterministic. Also, they might not be able to perceive the entire universe. Note that the previous definition of prediction does not say that it is feasible to actually predict everything, it only means that prediction is possible for a being which can take full snapshots of the universe and can go through all the possible models of an axiom system[TODO: define "mathematical prediction" or something like that and use it here, since I have two meanings of prediction]. A related case is the following: It is possible that almost all macroscopic events can be predicted very precisely using quantum physics. Assuming that this is indeed the case, many of these predictions require too many computational resources, making them infeasible. I am requiring even less than this, I am allowing axiom systems where there is no way to infer a prediction from the axiom system, but if one checks all possible models of that system, the prediction turns out to be true. [TODO: put some order in this paragraph and move it where it belongs, maybe leave it here.] 
...
[TODO: Decide when I use axiom set and when axiom system. Say explicitly that they mean the same thing.]  [TODO: Use can't, won't, isn't and can not, will not, is not consistently.]  [TODO: The intelligent beings can have $n$ incompatible models that would predict everything.]  [TODO: Think a bit more about the fact that even statistically we can't model more than $0%$]. $0$].  [TODO: How can we observe the universe without having uniforme laws?] [TODO: define "mathematical prediction" or something like that and use it here, since I have two meanings of prediction - I think this is done/not needed, I added a footnote in the only place where I use the normal meaning of prediction. I have to check. Maybe I should be more explicit about this.]