On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 3:45:45 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 2:40:03 PM UTC, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >> > > *It's there solely in your imagination, which has zero substance if we're > trying to discover reality. AG* >
Maybe not. Not all consistently defined objects are solely in my imagination. -- 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.
