Okay, now we're talking.

That isn't parsimony, that's ontological promiscuity of the worst sort.

alicorn&robinZ: i talked about ontological parsimony. you're talking about something else. epistemological parsimony, perhaps? same for mystery. that you can prolong it doesn't mean there's less of it.

cyan: yes, this might be a problem. you sure natural desity is the right measure?

zmdavies: looks very interesting. thanks!

jack: yes, I saw that problem too. That's why I said the theory might be self-defeating. My idea was that even if inflation as a theory is strictly speaking forbidden, it can phenomenologically point in the right direction. I mean, we might be still able to say something like: the "quasi"-observation" or the "quasi"-theory is true.