[extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

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.

Rafal