🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <73753@hydra.gatech.EDU> cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
>
>+     As far as 'reality' goes, if you may define it as you wish,
>+     just don't expect everybody else to share the definition, especially
>+     outside of science.
>+
>
>If a concept is defined in such a manner that it cannot in principle
>ever be shown to pertain to a component of reality, that concept is by
>definition meaningless. 

     This seems to depend, to a great degree, on your definition of 
     'reality'.  You may well define it so that anything that is 
     not reality is meaningless.  If, however, you define it so that reality
     is equivalent to the domain of science,  things that are outside
     do not lack innate 'meaning.'  In fact, it is arguable that *any*
     concept of which one can conceive has 'meaning' simply in the conception,
     regardless of the nature of 'reality'.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926