| dsgrue3 said:
It's pedantism. No doubt about it. I said if a third party source were observing the Universe prior to humans, it would confirm the existence of the atom. You can't simply say before life nothing existed. Of course it existed, but there weren't any intelligent beings around to confirm its existence. Nothing to ponder that simple fact. This is a definition for existence which is widely accepted, but it does present a mirror effect. A observes B confirming B's existence, but who confirmed A's existence? You're making a very strange argument trying to refute a defintion, which is laughably obsolete. Is there a point to be made here, because I'd rather not waste time debating the validity of a defintion which is accepted by the entire physics community. |
The first thing I don't do when defending my points is influencing my reader by using the backing of a scientific community. I argue my points and I let my interlocutor decide for himself. As such I consider that quite disingenuous, but I'll let it slide, let's get back to the topic.
The point I was not making was this:
A observes B does not confirm B's existence.
That is the point I was not making.
The point I was making was:
A does not observe B does not invalidate B's existence.
Do you see the difference? If you do, do you now realize that you were mistaken about my intent and for considering my argument pedantic?
