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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
