13 Jul '07 11:13>
Originally posted by whodeyNobody said that it must be defined "in its entirety" but it is only coherent to talk about its existence if it has at least some definition and you can only coherently talk about the existence of the defined parts of the entity.
I would challenge this assumption. Does one need to be able to define something in its entirety in order for it to be coherent?
An interesting fact of quantum mechanics is that if you cannot know whether an object is in position A or position B then it actually exists in both position A and position B simultaneously. Or to put it another way if you cannot know if an object is Red or Green then it is simultaneously red and green. This fact is used in something called entanglement.
For more info see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat