[extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 15:57:42 UTC 2007

On 4/1/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> On 4/1/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Did the number 0x0bd11a0bb188f291956549705169a996110841d4 exist?
> >
> > ### Yes! Always and forever, timeless, just as any element of the
> > platonic plenum.
> Rafal, I don't pretend to be able to dissuade anyone from any abstract
> belief, but along with infinite primes and infinite variations on
> infinities, do you also believe that "redness" "exists" in the
> "platonic plenum?"

### Yes, I can even see it sometimes.

There is a problem with believing in too few entities - if one insists
that entities not proven to exist should be assumed not to exist, then
one necessarily places himself at the conceptual center of the
universe. If I say that there is nothing beyond the most distant
object I can see, then my position is very special.

Since I don't think I am that special, I am forced to assume that
there are entities in existence (i.e. having at least one property)
that I have not observed, nor will ever be able to observe or think of
even in principle. This leads me to modal realism, and therefore, yes,
"redness" exists.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list