happydolphin on 18 December 2012
| dsgrue3 said:
Gah, you and your edits. You can't use the term entity in a definition of existence. That's like saying the property of this existing object proves existence. lol |
Hihi, I edited again :)
I don't know if it's complete, but I'm getting closer to where I want to get. Something that's verifiable.
For example, if something can be seen, yet a person with eyes can't see it, then it is either that the person's eyes are not the right sensors to observe the object and verify its existence, or that object/entity simply does not exist.
However said object could exist without the validation of said observer (the observation does not preclude existence).
