Dummett

So it's obviously not an example of a universe which never has observers, and hence it's quite irrelevant to the question Dummett is specifically addressing, which is whether a universe no part of which is ever observed or experienced can exist.

Backing Into an Evidentiary Standard for ID 2007

I keep hoping you'll go off and think critically about what Dummett is saying, but instead you just turn around and quote him again.

Backing Into an Evidentiary Standard for ID 2007

My argument stands, and it shows that Dummett is wrong to claim that material existence requires a conscious observer.

Backing Into an Evidentiary Standard for ID 2007

The greatness of philosophers like Putnam and Dummett is that they really wrestle with this issue in areas like mathematics and science and provide at least a rough map for lesser minds to see the thicket-strewn nature of the terrain.

Carry-Over Thread 2007

My argument stands, and it shows that Dummett is wrong to claim that material existence requires a conscious observer.

Backing Into an Evidentiary Standard for ID 2007

Btw, Dummett is the one who introduced this as the right kind of way to think about the meanings involved in metaphysical disputes, and it's fairly standard now.

Backing Into an Evidentiary Standard for ID 2007

Dummett is obviously distinguishing between a universe that never contains any observer and a universe that at some point within its spacetime contains an observer.

Backing Into an Evidentiary Standard for ID 2007

Dummett is an intuitionist and anti-realist, so his views on the nest of issues related to truth, logical consequence, etc. are rather unorthodox.

Matthew Yglesias » What Is Truth? 2007

Write to Stuart Weinberg at stuart.weinberg@dowjones.com and Ben Dummett at Ben.

Pension Plan Looks to Sell Stake in Maple Leafs Sports Stuart Weinberg 2011

Write to Anupreeta Das at anupreeta.das@wsj.com , Gina Chon at gina.chon@wsj.com and Ben Dummett at Ben.

Miner Ivanplats Plans IPO Anupreeta Das 2011