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
property.

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to