> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 14 23:34:18 2001 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > Yes. My point is: as long as we are not forced by evidence, why > > assume the existence of something we cannot describe or analyze in > > principle? > > In the spirit of this list, shouldn't we assume the existence (insofar > as anything exists: i.e. it exists if it thinks it exists) of anything > unless we are forced by the evidence to rule it out? > Certainly things that we can imagine even slightly, like real-valued > observers, already have a kind of existence, in that they cause us > to argue about them.
That's a bit like saying there is some truth to 1+1=3 just because we can argue about it.
