Russell Standish wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> I don't see that "relexive" adding anything here. It's just "existence" simpliciter isn't it?
>>
>
> Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing "reflexively
> exists" without being observed.
Observed in what sense? Consciously, by a conscious being? Or decoherred into a quasi-classical state, as in QM? "Reflexive" would seem to imply it's observed by itself.
Brent Meeker
>The tree falling unobserved in the
> forest does not exist reflexively, but may exist in other senses of
> the word. It seems quite a useful concept - I may have called it
> anthropic existence elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to have an accepted
> name.
>
> Cheers
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Jul 12 2007 - 23:57:39 PDT