No no, we can measure plenty of things, there are many compelling reasons to believe what we are experiencing is real, or rather is reality. This is, again, something that could be thought of, much like the concept of God, but the evidence points to existence, well, existing. There isn’t any compelling reason to believe otherwise.
No reason to believe there are not, and also that is not true. We have many ways to take measurements, directly and indirectly, with sensors that far surpass out meager senses.
Correct! And also some sensors so powerful and accurate, we can do cool things such as indirectly verifying the existence of things we cannot perceive, such as certain particles, black holes, dark matter, and more.
While I appreciate your pedantry, I am only perceiving data. The imperceptible is still as such. At this point I’m not sure if you’re trying to prove something, or merely attain some nebulous linguistic “gotcha”. The entire “you can only perceive reality with your senses” statement you made was presumably to somehow call into question that reality is not able to be perceived in any other way. That doesn’t seem to be where you’re trying to go anymore.
Ah, upon review, you’re trying to claim there is no evidence for reality being measurable, to which I presented evidence, the fact that our senses are not the only implements that can measure reality, but you’re still trying to call that into question by somehow saying if we didn’t have senses, we couldn’t interpret the data? This is a tree falling in the woods sort of argument. Of course there is a sound still if no one is around to hear it. Just like how these instruments we’ve made can measure the world and universe with or without us interpreting the data.
Now if you want to get into a “Schrödinger’s data” sort of argument where the data doesn’t exist until we percieve it, that would be equally ridiculous.
I will also say, you may be leaning into some sort of solipsism, which is kind of stupid anyway, especially since the conversation here was about empirical statement.
There is no evidence of either God, or that reality is a simulation. Both can be thought of as possibilities, but there’s no evidence.
Since there is no evidence of either, I have no reason to consider either of them seriously.
There’s no evidence that reality is real.
No no, we can measure plenty of things, there are many compelling reasons to believe what we are experiencing is real, or rather is reality. This is, again, something that could be thought of, much like the concept of God, but the evidence points to existence, well, existing. There isn’t any compelling reason to believe otherwise.
The only way you can measure reality is with your senses, and you haven’t proven your senses are accurate.
[DELETED DUPLICATE]
No reason to believe there are not, and also that is not true. We have many ways to take measurements, directly and indirectly, with sensors that far surpass out meager senses.
Wow, really? You’re saying we have a microscope that you don’t need to use your eyes to look through?
Correct! And also some sensors so powerful and accurate, we can do cool things such as indirectly verifying the existence of things we cannot perceive, such as certain particles, black holes, dark matter, and more.
Tell me about this magic microscope that you don’t read with your senses. How do you take the readings off it without looking at it?
While I appreciate your pedantry, I am only perceiving data. The imperceptible is still as such. At this point I’m not sure if you’re trying to prove something, or merely attain some nebulous linguistic “gotcha”. The entire “you can only perceive reality with your senses” statement you made was presumably to somehow call into question that reality is not able to be perceived in any other way. That doesn’t seem to be where you’re trying to go anymore.
Ah, upon review, you’re trying to claim there is no evidence for reality being measurable, to which I presented evidence, the fact that our senses are not the only implements that can measure reality, but you’re still trying to call that into question by somehow saying if we didn’t have senses, we couldn’t interpret the data? This is a tree falling in the woods sort of argument. Of course there is a sound still if no one is around to hear it. Just like how these instruments we’ve made can measure the world and universe with or without us interpreting the data.
Now if you want to get into a “Schrödinger’s data” sort of argument where the data doesn’t exist until we percieve it, that would be equally ridiculous.
I will also say, you may be leaning into some sort of solipsism, which is kind of stupid anyway, especially since the conversation here was about empirical statement.
[DELETED DUPLICATE]