> From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Wed Feb 14 23:34:18 2001
> > 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.

Reply via email to