On 21 Sep, 08:58, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2009, at 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote:
> > So does being "pure thought" mean "without a reference", i.e. a
> > fiction?  As in "Sherlock Holmes" is a pure thought?
> Consider the Many world theory of Everett, or the many histories of
> comp. Does it make sense to say that Sherlock Holmes exists in such
> structure? The problem is that a fiction like Sherlock Holmes is not
> well defined. It is a bit like unicorns. I would not compare such
> essentially fictional construction with a mathematical object, like a
> computation or like a number, which admits forms of realism.

I would not compare them in rigour or clarity.
I would compare them in ontology.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to