On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 1:34:09 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:

>
> *This definition of existence is self serving, and IMO theoretically and 
> philosophically extraneous. There is no reason to assume something exists 
> simply because it's consistent with anything, even the laws of physics. AG *
>

As I said, a consistently defined object is something rather than nothing, 
so it is there in some sense. Restricting this definition of existence 
would be arbitrary or anthropocentric. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to