|
Watch NOLAwitch foam at the mouth! | by toxin | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
This is an example of the way the moron in the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-09-22 09:51:44 |
|
was that Jackson or Moore? (n/t) | by shepmagoo | 2004-09-22 10:34:43 |
|
Can you show proof Moore is deluded? | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 10:42:02 |
|
Its not all about major facts though | by shepmagoo | 2004-09-22 11:17:46 |
|
It's a little more than that. | by Illiad | 2004-09-22 11:25:32 |
|
I do wish Someone | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 11:29:44 |
|
The Truth? You want the Truth? | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 12:19:52 |
|
Not true. | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 12:48:47 |
| If the truth, or 'reality' as you call it, |
by LurkerMo |
2004-09-22 12:54:02 |
is not accurately perceived by anybody, why is it relevant? Would something that is never perceived be relevant?
Or in other words, if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? Does it make a difference whether it does? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
What does being relevant have to do with it? | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-22 12:57:56 |
|
correction | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-22 13:02:32 |
|
Can an unknown truth be called true? | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 13:29:31 |
|
Of course it can. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 13:41:34 |
|
Except, of course, in Copenhagen | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 13:48:41 |
|
But what happens when | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 14:26:42 |
|
Then the two statements: | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:41:32 |
|
It doesn't. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 15:24:05 |
|
These philosophical differences _are_ important. | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:01:41 |
|
I never said that you could rely on Everybody | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 14:31:40 |
|
I think we have already established that | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:50:05 |
|
Just because we cannot know the entirety | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 15:05:05 |
|
In addition to Matthewdba's comments... | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 13:26:46 |
|
In order to perceive the truth, the whole truth | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 13:47:02 |
|
You are doing the impossible! | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 13:53:36 |
|
That wasn't what I said, though. | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:14:10 |
|
I see your mistake, now. Sorry I overlooked it | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 14:23:25 |
|
What it means is, that | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:26:05 |
|
In certain limited situation, perhaps. | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 14:29:17 |
|
How do you determine which category | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:43:36 |
|
Heisenberg? | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 13:54:53 |
|
I disagree. | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 14:06:39 |
|
That is _so_ limited a view of the truth. | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:22:41 |
|
You are _so_ equivocating. | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 14:26:51 |
|
What I don't understand is why you insist | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:39:15 |
|
What has any of that to do with | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 14:45:14 |
|
The fact that there is an answer that is | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:57:46 |
|
Some truths are relative, yes, but others | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 15:22:55 |
|
Different observers *can* see a pin up or down | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 15:32:28 |
|
Let's try a different example. | by cencithomas | 2004-09-22 16:45:59 |
|
Ah, but until the pins stop moving . .. | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 14:57:34 |
|
What does anyone Knowing it | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 14:38:24 |
|
In the Copenhagen interpretation, everything | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 14:59:30 |
|
Is that the "collapsing probability wave" theory? | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 15:07:00 |
|
Yep, that'd be it. | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 15:28:40 |
|
Thanks for jumping in. | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 15:45:43 |
|
What does something being true for you | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 15:00:33 |
|
Viewpoint only matters | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 15:32:59 |
