| dsgrue3 said:
It's interesting, but it's probably beyond this discussion. [Schrodinger's cat experiment] Yeah, you do have to rewire your brain when you confine to a particular definition. You're using the same term just definining it differently than I am which is fine, but you need to define it first so we can use your definition instead if you want to go that route. But don't expect to debate my definition using yours. That doesn't work. |
I personally would define existence as a property that is independent of the observer. The observer can confirm the existence, but the existence in and of itself doesn't require observation. This would fit the evolution ex-nihilo paradox I brought forth to challenge your definition.
Because we both know that matter "existed" prior to the generation of sentient beings, I personally feel in safer logic using the definition I'm supporting.
