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. >
*You mean like a unicorn? AG * 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.
