• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    what we perceive as the world can never be determined because we perceive things differently.

    I’d actually argue that that is proof that the world CAN be determined: if several people with different perception and perspectives agree on how something looks, feels, tastes etc, that commonality in spite of differences is proof that the shared experience of something is objectively real.

    many of us don’t even see the exact same colors for example

    But most of us do, which can’t be a coincidence.

    And this can be extended to quantum physics even when you consider that certain things are based on when they are observed.

    Hey! No fair bringing physics to a philosophy discussion! How would you like it if I used football to prove that golf is boring? 😉

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      commonality

      That’s a bit of a weak point. It’s proven that with propaganda enough people can be made to be convinced of something that can even be very untrue.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ok? You don’t need consensus to determine truth. It is about model making and evidence building.

        Is it hot?

        Touch it, have someone else touch it, use an IR gun on it, smell it, feel the warmth air around it, put a thermometer on it, get a witness account of how it got warm…

        Each piece of data builds confidence. Eventually you get a wonder theory about how it got warm and a model from how it returns back to normal.

        • Akasazh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yes it’s quite an ok basis for the scientific method, but op was referring to objective truth. Shared subjectivity might be the best approximation, however it’s no basis for objective ontology

            • Akasazh@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              How can you be sure it’s not a Cartesian ghost trying to fill your senses into seeing one?

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                If you think there is a ghost it is up to you to provide evidence for it. And after you do that please explain how your ghost interacts with the real world in a perfectly consistent manner.

                Remember it is always up to the person claiming something exists to advance evidence

                • Akasazh@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  real world

                  Ontology is about how we would objectively prove there is such a thing as the real world. There is a reason in science we’re not talking about truth finding, but falsification.

                  Basically we can only come up with theories and try to disprove them. Objectively proving existence is an unsolved problem.

                  But that’s a tldr of the entire history of philosophy, there’s plenty of there to explore.

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    We got it backwards from the beginning. It is all these weird brain in the jar arguments that need to prove themselves not the physical world that does.