happydolphin on 18 December 2012
| dsgrue3 said:
If nothing observed A, A did not exist. This is by definition which we have been debating. Satisfied? |
Much better. If A (matter) did not exist, and A gives birth to B (sentient beings, via evolution), how did B exist as we observe it today?
Truth is:
At that moment where A had not yet been observed, the truth is that it still existed, for without A's existence B could not have come into being. Which invalidates the converse of the definition you offered.
The definition is fine, no problem with it. It's the converse that isn't (e.g. that if we haven't observed something then it doesn't exist).
