Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
- From: "ave1" <ave1@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Jun 2006 21:56:55 -0700
Oxidized wrote:
ave1 wrote:
Alright, I've read up on it and get it. You asked me: "What about my
quasar suggestion? Would the delayed-path photons be affected by
observing the direct-path photons? Well?"
Answer: If we knew from which pathway (lensed pathway or pathway that
wasn't lensed) each light image travelled, it would come to us in the
form of particles, but not that way if we observed them without that
knowledge.
So mind comes AFTER matter. Thank you.
How do you get this out of what I said?
Maybe I should be comprehending this differently, but why would the
universal laws being applicable to astronomical observations (and not
merely things on the quantum level), make one think any different about
mind coming before or after matter?
I don't see this as some issue that somehow says something against the
content of my sig. Why do you?
It is the same experiment.
This didn't really answer my question.
Oxidized
Steve
---
Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
- From: Oxidized
- Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
- References:
- Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
- From: ave1
- Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
- From: Oxidized
- Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
- Prev by Date: Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
- Next by Date: Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
- Next by thread: Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|