Except that's wrong. If something cannot be defined, it cannot exist.

That's not to say that being undefined = non-existence. That's absurd, there are plenty of things that exist that are unobserved so haven't been defined, but if it CAN be observed, it CAN be defined, so it DOES exist. If it cannot be observed, (by ANYTHING) then it cannot exist.

>>484

It follows from what you're saying that both the past and future are not real.

As far as OP's post goes, I fail to see how any temporal act of definition could have any effect on whether or not something actually exists.

>>487

No it doesn't. The past has been observed, and can be observed by someone with a large telescope light years away. For instance, if someone 300 million light years away with a powerful telescope was looking at earth, they would see dinosaurs.

The future can similarly be observed by us when we move in to it. It is also possible that it can be observed right now by beings other than ourselves.

Confusion is the fuel of a personality.

>>488

You may see the light that was reflected in your direction in the past, but regardless of what you're seeing, the telescope is still pointed at something very far away that is in the same time as us. "Looking into the past" with telescopes is no different than looking at at the Earth and claiming that you are looking back into the time of the creation of the solar system by looking at something that was created then. The only difference is the longer distances involved.

Seeing the future through the passage of time is completely different than seeing old light waves that reach you in the present.