Lee Corbin wrote:
> Tom writes
> > The difference between a quark and a lepton can be described with
> > mathematics, even though perhaps it's harder to pin down than the
> > difference between 3 and 34. I think most of us wouldn't have a
> > crucial problem with that. But alas the difference between 3 and 34 is
> > in the counting. Here is the heart of the matter, I believe. It takes
> > an observer to count, since it takes an observer to decide when to
> > start counting, or to define a group of things.
> Ah ha! So what about numbers so high they haven't been counted yet?
> Perhaps 10^10^10^10^10 only came into existence after exponentiation
> had been discovered?
> And I guess that before humans evolved on Earth, the solar system
> did not have 8 or 9 planets; after all, there may have been no one
> in the universe.
> Or would you say that the solar system did not have 8 or 9 planets
> unless some distant intelligence in the universe evolved before we
> did? In that case, did the "existence" of *eight*, say, spread
> at the speed of light from the point where someone first thought
> of it?
My point is that of the thread title "Only Existence is necessary?"
Not that observers are necessary for existence, but that existence is
insufficient for meaning. I'm still holding out for Bruno to work the
rest of his diagonalization tricks to maybe try to prove otherwise.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at