From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > On Wed, 12 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >   
   >>> Has anyone ever managed to present evidence to the contrary? If not,   
   >>> we are very justified in knowing that the world exists.   
   >>   
   >> I don't think that it would be possible to prove that something   
   >> doesn't exist, or provide evidence of such. On the other hand,   
   >> existence is a   
   >   
   > Again I must mind my language. _Disproving_ the physical world does   
   > not mean proving that it doesn't exist, although in some logical/weird   
   > way it might be possible although I cannot see how.   
   >   
   > You could prove for instance, that we live in a simulation, or are   
   > brains in vats, or thoughts in gods mind.   
   >   
   > If you prove that, you have "disproven" the physical world, and shown   
   > that it was just an illusion or misunderstanding in favour of   
   > something else.   
   >   
   > Does that make more sense?   
      
   No. :) Where would the simulation be simulated? on a computer? which is   
   a physical object. Or a brain in a vat, the vat is a physical   
   object. Although you have shown that the physical world is different   
   from the way we thought, it is nevertheless a physical world.   
      
   >   
   >> strange word. As Hume pointed out, you cannot conceive of anything   
   >> without conceiving of it existing. So to say the table exists doesn't   
   >> say anything more than saying I have perceived it.   
   >>   
   >> I think the idea of existence comes from the idea of presence   
   >> (origin: 'to be at hand'), and non-existence from absence (origin: to   
   >> be away).   
   >>   
   >> So, the idea of the external world being non-existent is pretty much   
   >> meaningless.   
   >   
   > This is an excellent argument in favour of the external world. Maybe   
   > this will close the book for good on idealism. ;)   
      
   I think something has fallen through the cracks. If we say we have a   
   physical world because we keep bumping into it, that could mean only   
   that we have encountered some rule which prevents us going further. But   
   we have such rules in mathematics, e.g. you cannot divide zero by zero.   
      
   What does 'external world' or 'physical' world actually mean? is it   
   about substance, matter, etc. But if we keep chopping things in half we   
   end up with something which is not substance or matter, we end up with   
   strange things like two dimentional entities, or numbers, or massless   
   points. That's not what I was expecting, I was expecting something which   
   was solid and could not be divided further. But why can't the external   
   world be maths?  Why assume it has to be something else?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)