Harv,

>>>I don't even think solipsism is provable>but of course not preferable.>for something to exist in a mind-independent manner means that it has the potential either directly or indirectly to influence> This is not a precise definition>The 'meta-rules' are said to exist in that they are said to influence observable phenomena (e.g., the creation of the world)>It is not a statement (human language) that you originally said must be self-consistent. I believe you said that the 'laws of symmetry' were a result of self-consistency. >I can easily imagine a universe that is not self-consistent.(assuming only one universe)>The events of the universe would be contradictory in that scenario. So, when you suggest that the laws of physics arise from a self-consistent universe (or something like that), then my question is why is self-consistency something that we should expect of the universe?>A Platonist can offer a reason. Such as, the meta-rules of the universe are self-consistent by definition and therefore force the universe to be self-consistent...>A cause is a valid reason (i.e., assuming we had all-knowledge).>Another simple working definition: reality is that which exists.

• Simpler yet... - paulm - April 16, 2001 - 22:53 UTC
• My sub needs pressurizing - harvey1 - April 16, 2001 - 23:39 UTC