On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
> 
> I don't see that "relexive" adding anything here.  It's just "existence" 
> simpliciter isn't it?  
> 

Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing "reflexively
exists" without being observed. The tree falling unobserved in the
forest does not exist reflexively, but may exist in other senses of
the word. It seems quite a useful concept - I may have called it
anthropic existence elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to have an accepted
name.

Cheers

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                              
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to