On Sep 1, 1:00 am, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sami,
> (first time that I have an exchange with you, so: *greetings!)*
> I am a bit negative towards ontology, because it postulates an 'existence'
> to describe and such is hard to identify. A second difficulty arises in a
> descriptive view of a dynamic (constantly changing) world, most likely a
> "snapshot" of one stage in the change.

Hi and well met! I share your negativity toward this 'existence'.

On Sep 1, 1:00 am, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> whether X exists? my answer is a "yes", because in your mind (and now in
> mine as well) it does.
> Be it virtual, physical(?), mental, or whatever.

I agree.

On Sep 1, 1:00 am, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You wrote: "*In the subject of this group"*  a sometime hard-to-define term.
> Thanks to Wei Dai, the group condones a wide variety of topics - domains
> what makes it interesting and educational.

The subject of this group: to discuss the idea that all possible
universes exist. Here "exist" is used in the absolute, unqualified
sense. It's as if an object by itself is not enough, it needs a
property of existence to be real. I'd like to deny meaning to this

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

Reply via email to