On 9/24/2012 11:04 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net>:

On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,

I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise that "you" are the only observer involved. Such nonsense! Considering that there are a HUGE number of observers of the moon, the effects of the observations of any one is negligible. If none of them measure the presence of the moon or its effects, then the existence of the moon becomes pure the object of speculation. Note that being affected by the moon in terms of tidal effects is a measurement!

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

Thing is, the Moon doesn't exist, even if you do look at it.

Saibal

Hi Saibal,

I would have to disagree with you only because I wish to be consistent with my definition of existence. The moon, as everything else, is merely phenomenal appearance, but as an a prior necessary possibility to even be an illusion, it must exist.

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to