A
abasin2
Guest
I see the Top Headline on Yahoo which used to be "typically reserved" for what is theoretically an important newsworthy item, reverted to a 2,000+ year old premise the subject of which is the possibility of unperceived existence. The irrelevant “Tree in the Forrest” question (s) have been asked and answered rarely surfacing except for comedic relief.
Even then, more descriptive, albeit still silly:
“Can something exist without being perceived?”
Granted, the scientific based answers, while accurate, make an attempt to answer that which is self-evident.
The true answer to the question is two college professors arguing about the question on campus, with each taking an opposite position.
A sudden “Wind” comes up braking a large branch off a nearby, “observable tree” which hits the one professor in the head who argued nothing can exist if it is not perceived. He was asked by the other professor, why did you get hit in the head?
His response was: The Wind blew, didn’t you feel it? It hit the stupid “tree behind me” and I have a concussion. The other professor stated: How is this possible, you had your back to the tree, did not know it was there and “Wind” cannot be observed, only a “CAUSALITY” of wind can measured and with your back to the tree, it did not exist, so I ask again, how did you get that concussion?
The moral of this I leave to all here, but what is NEW is why these answers, (and I include some of my own to this and other questions), come up in primary searches when people are trying to get accurate information?
In the past, answers & ?'s like these and mine right here, were relegated to the 25,000th + hit. Now they are in the top 5, and now even a headline.
THAT IS A QUESTION I CANNOT ANSWER. Help Please.
Even then, more descriptive, albeit still silly:
“Can something exist without being perceived?”
Granted, the scientific based answers, while accurate, make an attempt to answer that which is self-evident.
The true answer to the question is two college professors arguing about the question on campus, with each taking an opposite position.
A sudden “Wind” comes up braking a large branch off a nearby, “observable tree” which hits the one professor in the head who argued nothing can exist if it is not perceived. He was asked by the other professor, why did you get hit in the head?
His response was: The Wind blew, didn’t you feel it? It hit the stupid “tree behind me” and I have a concussion. The other professor stated: How is this possible, you had your back to the tree, did not know it was there and “Wind” cannot be observed, only a “CAUSALITY” of wind can measured and with your back to the tree, it did not exist, so I ask again, how did you get that concussion?
The moral of this I leave to all here, but what is NEW is why these answers, (and I include some of my own to this and other questions), come up in primary searches when people are trying to get accurate information?
In the past, answers & ?'s like these and mine right here, were relegated to the 25,000th + hit. Now they are in the top 5, and now even a headline.
THAT IS A QUESTION I CANNOT ANSWER. Help Please.