well since things and people have never been shown to just appear out of thin air, reason and experience says they were. However, you can't know for sure in the philosophical sence. But then again you can't know the object that you see, feel, smell, touch, taste actually exists. Life could all be one big hallucination for all u know.

And no, no joints or alcohol or any other drugs involved (well at least not directly, drugs do tend to bring out the philosophical side in people) just interest in these topics rather than some bs about criticising a woman being sexism

How do I know?

Occam's Razor. But that's just me.

Or how do you know that the earth, and all objects, items, people, memories, literature, energy and etc. was not created five minutes ago?

That said, I'd like to point out that if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it - it does NOT make a sound - simply an energy release, that if heard, would then be a sound.... Maybe that will turn into logic later to figure out some cockamanie theory to combat your theory... but not right now :-p

Much more interesting is the way a light wave's function collapses at the exact time it is measured.

However on the same note, physics proves that the object existed before you interpretted it. Eg. Thermodynamics
Still always interesting to ponder.
Oh, and theodora, Occam's razor is "the best solution is often the simplest"

Cogit, ergo sum!

> vissertje wrote:

> cogito

anyways on the tree business: animals have ears too, and I bet there's some form of animal near pretty much any falling tree
____________________________________________________

aaaaaaa but are animals any more aware of who they are than the tree is aware of itself?  animals show no signs of sentience and i believe i can conclude that there awareness is no more than that of a plant or cell.

The best proof is t' place somehtin' in a room leave th' room an' close th' door an' then dern't observe someone else who walks into th' room an' moves th' object before leavin'.

If that person did not exisit because ye di'nae observe them it does not stop th' object fro movin'...

That said I much prefer Terry Prachett an' th' cat....  Also his theory on immpossible, which is th' universe doesn't have a list o' impossible thin's, it sort o' makes it up on th' spot, an' in th' case o' cold fusion were bein' slower than normal t' react.., on a dead man's chest! 

However t' add t' this, how do ye know that somethin' ye observe as true is observed t' th' same vlaue o' true by someone else at th' same time?  And hoist the mainsail! Does th' sound ye make if ye name th' object have any real meanin', or is it a random utterin' o' sounds which everyone manages t' process inot meanin' th' same thin', or even that they dern't mean th' same thin' but that ye be so used t' intreprettin' that as that thin' ye dern't realise that it might be different?  How can ye know everyones version o' "orange" is th' same?  Or is it th' fact that that visual is assossiated with th' sound o' yhe word orange?

How is this post any different if I had merely said "quack" as me response?

Now t' add extra dimensions, how much o' todays problems can be assossiated with th' way we intrepret our surroundin's, on what we believe t' be true.  If we tore down all th' thin's which make us who we be, definitions, objects, thoughts, ideals even speech an' remade them startin' from stratch but with th' knowledge we have, which has also been deconstructed, could we make somehtin' better, by Davy Jones' locker?