Russell Standish wrote:
> 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. 

Observed in what sense?  Consciously, by a conscious being?  Or decoherred into 
a quasi-classical state, as in QM?  "Reflexive" would seem to imply it's 
observed by itself.

Brent Meeker 

>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

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

Reply via email to