>> I am not talking about theoretical things that can't be
>> detected. I'm talking about things that existed *before*
>> anyone knew about them, like the earth before there was any
>> life.
>>
>Sorry. Thought you were talking about confusing knowledge
>of a thing with its existence.
I thought we were too. Let me try again. I think this is true:
If it is possible for something to exist before it is detected,
then it is possible for something to exist without being detected.
Agree of disagree?
>> Do you know of anyone that would disagree with either
>> statement?
>>
>Sorry again. I try to keep my mail folders small,
>and I don't have time to trawl archives, but I
>could have sworn this thread was about precisely
>that issue. Perhaps you or someone else could
>explain to me, offline if that's considered
>appropriate, what it was about, if not whether
>subjectivity or objectivity is primary.
Maybe you can tell me why suggesting that objective reality
exists independent of observers necessarily means that I
find subjective reality "distasteful". (I know you're not the
one that said that but I'm guessing you don't disagree.)
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/