dsgrue3 on 18 December 2012
| happydolphin said: 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. |
So far, I have gathered that existence is a property independent of the observer, but how is that property defined? Self-defined? "I exist"?
