RE: Descartes was plain wrong?

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:36:59 -0000

I'm not set up for that - but the key point is I *do not* have to exist for
the thought of you reading my e-mail to exist. In the multiverse, all events
do exists, all thoughts, including that one, do exist, but they are not
related to each other in any objective way. So the fact that I think I'm
sending an e-mail and you think you're receiving it does not imply a
relationship between the two. It's coincidence, if you like, but in an
infinite plenitude all coincidences happen. We make the silly assumption
that there are causal, temporal relationships, and this leads to paradoxes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott D. Yelich [SMTP:scott.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 February, 2000 11:28 AM
> To: Higgo James
> Subject: RE: Descartes was plain wrong?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Higgo James wrote:
> > We're getting there. The thought exists, so something exists. But a
> Scott
> > Yelich does not need to exist in order for thah thought 'of yours' to
> exist.
> > I do not need to exist for that thought of 'you reading my e-mail' to
> exist.
>
> I'm "absentia" in IRC (EFNET)... and
> "nottakenyetihope" in AIM (instant messenger).
> Can you or do you want to chat there instead of via email?
>
> Well, maybe I'm eing silly here, but I think that *you* do have
> to exist for me to be able to read an email that *you* sent.
>
> Or, is this not what you're saying?
>
> Scott
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBOLJyplpGPE+AF6qBAQFxJAP/cp6mcdo+H6SFrRV6/3J39+QD6bfETatI
> bRj25FCkm/swphMeBAKnHRrzB0F0K3UgRyWW4ihvt8FycYgaeUPgV9iUQPGTRiHC
> UDFpb5chzvfQF431FD1wS4Pfe011jVdTKLkhXytxe7ThG6e3ImmI1gUSMk7Xxyi/
> OM/eGnTC3yU=
> =Ht1S
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tue Feb 22 2000 - 03:40:07 PST