I just finished writing a dissertation where I had to prove that what I was writing was credible. The outcome was based on "multiple realities," which meant that if two or three sources said the same thing, then it was real. So I go along with your first statement. How we perceive it is a different matter.
I have only a conceptual understanding myself since I don't have the math skills for it.
What field are you in?
You brought up an interesting point with Solipsism. I researched it and came up with an article that describes it in detail.
Social sciences - Leadership and Literature.
The biggest problem with solipsism is that it requires mind/body dualism. Get rid of that and the problem disappears.
That clarifies what "multiple realities" means in your context.
I like your introduction of evolution into the discussion but can I suggest that whilst running from a "sealion" might be the right way to go you're unlikely to outrun the lion you've come across in the Serengeti or wherever, so may be best sitting quiet and hoping it cant sense you're presence, (even then standstill I'd guess might mean the large cat leaves you be?).
What you see as "off topic" is actually appropriate here. It's a big factor in why human perception is so flawed. Humans are not like Vulcans, most of our perceptions and behavior follow emotion, not logic. We are not born with logic. That must be learned, and even if it is, emotion still drives much of our behavior.
If that's the case then it would be genetic, because experiencing a bigger moon just over the horizon is almost universal. I'm still betting on it being something to do with looking through a longer distance of atmosphere.
So you'll be applying the linguistic turn (which I've just read a bit about) to the philosophical discussion of reality, how it applies to objective reality, rather than historical objectivity (which is what I just read, which btw, was very interesting).
Exactly.
When I read your words saying that you would not exist if reality did not exist, my first thought was, "How would you know?" But that got really, really deep when I tried to parsed it out and I haven't had enough coffee yet.
and it addresses one point of view, on what I was saying in my first paragraph:
Super interesting, thought-provoking article. Thank you.
For you then would it be more of a multiverse view?
Can I be a PITA and note that Vulcans are also not born with logic and are, in fact, a violent, emotional, irrational race at heart such that they spent 1500 years (I think) training their minds away from emotion.
Can you elaborate on this a bit, please. Because it sounds like you're saying you've got the answer to the problem of Solipsism.
Chomsky isn't really relevant to this particular discussion. He is only relevant when it comes to overall theories of semantics. He thinks there is a built-in grammar of sorts that explains how we acquire language. People like Quine and Dennett think nothing is built-in and we need a fully empirical explanation.
Well... it's the view that I can only prove that I exist to myself and to no one else, which is slightly different.
I concede. When you posted that, I remembered the movie that explained the actual origin of Vulcan logic.
It comes down to Rene Descartes observation: "I don't think. Therefore, I am not."
