A wall can be wet, it doesn’t require a person to touch the wall before it can be called wet. So the sense of touch is not required for something to be wet.
It changes the property of something else to make it wet.
If the wall was dry and I add water to it I have changed this property, if the wall is already wet and I add water to it I have changed nothing. Therefore if I add water to something and do not change its properties then it was already wet in the first place.
If adding water to water does not change its properties then the water was already wet in the first place.
If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?
I thought we were talking about science, not philosophy.
How do we know the properties of black holes, distract stars, and the early universe if we’re not in them?
I’m not going to put much faith into an argument on “what is wet” from someone who isn’t sure if a rock on the bottom of a pond is wet unless they reach in and touch it.
Rain is wet, it is not adhered to a solid surface. The middle of the ocean is wet even if there’s no solid surface near by.
Isn’t it only wet after it touches you? You can anticipate it’s wet, but the state would exist after contact.
Aren’t the molecules touching other molecules wet if it involves touch?
An individual h2o molecule can’t be wet, but if two of them are touching, they are both wet.
Wet to the touch, not to each other. It changes the property of something else to make it wet.
A wall can be wet, it doesn’t require a person to touch the wall before it can be called wet. So the sense of touch is not required for something to be wet.
If the wall was dry and I add water to it I have changed this property, if the wall is already wet and I add water to it I have changed nothing. Therefore if I add water to something and do not change its properties then it was already wet in the first place.
If adding water to water does not change its properties then the water was already wet in the first place.
As I said, it changes the property of something else, a person does not need to be involved.
As I said, if adding water to water doesn’t change the property, then the water was already wet.
That doesn’t make sense, it changes other things.
How would you know if it was wet if you’re not around
If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?
I thought we were talking about science, not philosophy.
How do we know the properties of black holes, distract stars, and the early universe if we’re not in them?
Educated guessing.
So a person doesn’t have to be physically present and interacting with something in order to know the physical properties of it.
I think it might be wet somewhere. But I am not there, and I cannot know unless I am there to experience the essence of wetness.
I’m not going to put much faith into an argument on “what is wet” from someone who isn’t sure if a rock on the bottom of a pond is wet unless they reach in and touch it.
I’m not going to allow my eyes to become wet over someone who doesn’t understand that everything has been a joke.