At 9:27 +0200 22/05/2002, Lennart Nilsson wrote (on the everything-list):
>In the Motion Mountain project dse.nl/motionmountain/welcome.html Christoph >Schiller defines existence such: "(physical) existence is the ability to >describe interactions." And furthermore explains this by saying: "It is thus >pointless to discuss whether a physical concept 'exists' or whether it is >'only' an abstraction used as a tool for descriptions of observations. The >two possibilities coincide. The point of dispute can only be whether the >descriptions provided by a concept is or is not precise." >Isn't that a good point!!! Sure. But I don't think my old friend Christoph really follows it :-) Also what is exactly an interaction? You should try to describe it without postulating implicitely physicalness if you don't want to apply 'exists' to physical concept. Perhaps "Geometry of Interaction" by the logician Jean Yves Girard is interesting from that point of view. In the same regard the work by another logician Vaughan Pratt on the mind/body problem (http://chu.stanford.edu/guide.html#ratmech) is quite relevant. Bruno
