On 9/24/2012 11:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Citeren "Stephen P. King" <[email protected]>:
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
