[michellemfry]

Ok, harmonygirl. You and I together, I think we can take Baudrunner to his knees. Of course he'll like it, but that's besides the point. I can't do it alone.

[harmonygirl]

Sing it Sista!

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald

Non-existing things simply don't exist, this is true. However, the idea or concept of non-existing things does exist. The real question is can we find a non-existing thing that has the properties of existence? Can we find an item (or any number of items) that meets the criteria for non-existence as well as existence?

Every single object in the universe. Just by the fact that something exists, it is automatically part of reality (the set of all existences) and therefore part of each of the existences in reality, including non-existence. Just as some say you could wake up being a monkey, or go to the kitchen and find it's upside down, well it is the same: the kitchen might not be there at all, and the monkey also. You may not be there again. So every object that exists is an object in non-existence. This is the great idea, it doens't make sense but is true, and those kind of ideas are the best in science and philosophy.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by baudrunner

I think the guy who came up with, "If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound?"

He's long since retired from the rewards of this momentous insight and has built himself a cabin amongst the trees from which he cannot see the forest.

The funny thing is that the person who first came up with that was a woman playing the telephone game at a New Year's party. She said, "If a man says something and there's no women around to hear him is he still wrong?"

I met her once; she had a nice hat.

[michellemfry]

Dustin, you've been a good sport and pivotal in the discussion about what may not exist. If we have reached your last nerve, it's ok to put the discussion aside for awhile. I'm concerned about losing you as a participant.

Your patience duly noted by this paticipant.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by michellemfry

Dustin, you've been a good sport and pivotal in the discussion about what may not exist. If we have reached your last nerve, it's ok to put the discussion aside for awhile. I'm concerned about losing you as a participant.

Your patience duly noted by this paticipant.

That last post was supposed to be a joke like someone emailed me. I thought it would be funny but I guess it wasn't

Thanks for your conern, though.

[michellemfry]

Dustin, you are funny. I just got too serious on you. I'm the one who should apologize. You have been doing some nice work, don't want to lose you now.

[harmonygirl]

wouldn't simultaneous existence and non-existence be the very nature of this dimension? (and hence reality for our purposes?)

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Just by the fact that something exists, it is automatically part of reality (the set of all existences) and therefore part of each of the existences in reality, including non-existence. Just as some say you could wake up being a monkey, or go to the kitchen and find it's upside down, well it is the same: the kitchen might not be there at all, and the monkey also. You may not be there again. So every object that exists is an object in non-existence.

Can you elaborate on this a bit more? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by michellemfry

Dustin, you are funny. I just got too serious on you. I'm the one who should apologize. You have been doing some nice work, don't want to lose you now.

I see. I don't think an apology is neccesary though.

Thanks for the compliments!