Ravi says:
> >to us of course. something might very well exist out there, but
> >the notion that it corresponds to our imagination of it is only
> >a device of convenience, to be be used carefully under ockham's
> >guidance. if we say that the universe as spoken about by us
> >"exists" in our minds (our imaginations) then no such image
> >exists before or after our (our = sentient beings) existence.
> >if we start referring to the "thing-in-itself" even the
> >existence of our mind and imagination cannot capture that, so
> >why make statements about it unless when useful (in a pragmatic
> >sense)?
Yoshie Furuhashi:
> Surely, anyone who studies evolution must be able to imagine the
> history of the world before the emergence of human beings and other
> creatures capable of subjective investigations of objects; likewise,
> anyone who studies astronomy, etc. must be able to imagine the
> extinction of human beings and other creatures capable of subjective
> investigations of objects: "In about two billion years Earth will
> become uninhabitable as a gradually warming Sun produces a runaway
> greenhouse effect. In five billion years the Sun will swell up and
> die, burning the Earth to a crisp in the process. At about the same
> time the Milky Way will collide with its twin the Andromeda galaxy,
> now about two million light-years away and closing fast, spewing
> stars, gas and planets across intergalactic space" (at
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/01/science/01END.html?pagewanted=all>).
Yes, but in thinking about such a world, one is projecting one's mind into it. This doesn't mean such a world can't exist, but it does mean you can't think about it without pretending something that isn't so. If you are thinking about a world that once existed, you are doing so on the basis of receiving energy and information from it. You have become that physically significant entity, the observer/receiver.
On the other hand, an imagined world like that described above is _entirely_ mental.
-- Gordon