On Sep 1, 1:00 am, John Mikes <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 property. -- 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.
