What support is there for a reality that exists independent of my own senses?

As in, the world you experience is too intricate and expansive to be the product of your limited imagination, therefore it exists in some form outside of your mind.

gravity

How did you come to that conclusion?

How did you come to that conclusion?
How does that provide support for a reality independent of my senses?

And what are criteria to determine if the world is too expansive or not?
How can I determine limits of my imagination?
Only by appealing to some objective reality that impose limits to it. This is a circular argument, bud.

Comparing experience with imagination.

That response raises more questions than it answers. Also can you respond to this guy:

>How did you come to that conclusion?

The nature of our senses are wholly subjective. There is no way to now, even in theory, whether what we experience is actually related to "reality" at all, we have to assume it.

>How can I determine limits of my imagination?

By testing it, i.e. imagining stuff.

>Only by appealing to some objective reality that impose limits to it. This is a circular argument, bud.

You asked for "support" and I gave it to you. Obviously there is no proof, and you're not clever for pointing that out.

That response raises more questions than it answers.

That response raises more questions than it answers.

by comparing "experience" to "imagination" you are assuming the two are different from the start. to prove that I'm not just imagining all this stuff you start by assuming experience is different than imagination. you aren't proving anything, you're starting with the answer you already believe in.

see

This is not a conclusion user.
This is just the best model that explains some things. It is my best model up to date, but probably not the definitive.

You can still continue looping on your solipsism, but neither you nor anything related to some particular simulated entity is going to be important when explaining the whole picture.

> By testing it, i.e. imagining stuff.
But you can't know if it's your imagination or your imagination inside imagination. Besides, I personally see no difficulty in imagining intricate worlds, hell, some people do it for a living.
> Obviously there is no proof
So are you arguing for FEELS > REALS or what?

t. dwemer

>But you can't know if it's your imagination or your imagination inside imagination.

Of course not.

>Besides, I personally see no difficulty in imagining intricate worlds, hell, some people do it for a living.

That's a ridiculous claim. The real world is many orders of magnitude more complex than any fictional world.

>So are you arguing for FEELS > REALS

No I'm making a casual reasonable argument, which is not the same thing as a rigorous proof (which is obviously impossible, but also unnecessary because you already fully believe in the external world).

> The real world is many orders of magnitude more complex than any fictional world.
But you never access the world in it's entire complexity, you only deals with a small part of it at a time, so your imagination can create details on-demand. Then again, if we don't know limits of our imagination the argument from "too complex" is meaningless.
> a casual reasonable argument
So your argument to be accepted without critical examination or what? Isn't it better to just live it at "there is no proof"?

How do you come to suppose we have knowledge of a priori concepts?

other objects within your first person perspective who behave as though they maintain a first person perspective similar to your own. it's not conclusive evidence, but it's evidence.

>a priori concepts
utter crap.

How do you explain mathematics?

Naturalism has a great deal of difficulty expressing how we can know these sorts of things that traditionally fall into the category.

numbers aren't inherent to the universe. we simply ascribe them to things.

the "speed of light" is a constant, the amount of mph units we tack on to it is completely arbitrary.

I think it is mistaken to see the application of math (measurement for the SoL), as being the same as the idea of math.

Suppose that there was a universe where no sentient life existed. Wouldn't there still be a certain amount of things, even if there was no one around to count them?

there's nothing around to create the abstraction of "amount". this is why a priori is crap. the idea of an "amount" of something is not inherent to the universe, it's something humans came up with after experiencing and observing things with some level of mental linguistic ability and memory.

you could say there is x number of planets around a specific star(assuming you have the context of abstract materials to be able to), but discerning these objects as significant compared to other objects, regarding the objects as a separate category from other objects around other stars, ascribing them as a sort of "unit" in the first place, is all subjectively based material.

don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that it's subjective that eight planets orbit our sun, by the way we define "planets", the "amount", as we've defined the idea, is static. "amount" isn't inherent, though. "eight" of something doesn't exist axiomatically. there is just stuff, and something intelligent might come along and tack on abstractions to a specific portion of stuff, divide it in an arbitrary way, and "count" it. the application of numbers to anything, and the measurement of any form of unit, is as subjective as liking or disliking something.

I think I will have to concede this one to you.

In my heart I like to think you are wrong, but then, I have no arguments that reach the conclusion I want to back up this perhaps misfounded intuition.

I guess I'll just have to think on it.

The ratios would still exist though, even if there weren't numbers to describe them. At y mass they would eventually collide.

Or a star with mass y mostly emit photons of energy/wavelength EFG, while a star with mass z will mostly emit photons of energy/wavelength HIJ. The behavior would be constant even without an observer with an arbitrary counting system, and parts of these behaviours involve specific, constant ratios. This is not to say that the ratios are some basic fundamental metaphysical lattice underpinning the universe or whatever, but no matter how you describe it the effects of "gravity" and "electromagnetism" would be unequal even with nobody to define what gravity, electromagnetism, and unequal even mean, because otherwise the universe would be behaving much differently.

ive often wondered if we all even see the same colours, for example there is a red bus to me it is the colour red but to you it is the colour i know as green and to someone else it is the colour i perceive as yellow, how ever we have all learn and grow up knowing what ever colour we each see it as is red

Interesting, how does lucid dreaming tie into that?

What is this map, its disturbing me. Its like a piece of art that I can't tell what it is, i just like it...

That argument is BTFO when you consider that within OP's argument is the possibility that your imagination is just made up by your actual imagination, which is your reality.

compartmentalizing these concepts into relative ratios is as abstract as ascribing an amount of something to something. it's not actually real, it's just a combination of abstractions we utilize to make things organized and easy to communicate with each other about.

the effects of gravity are constant and of course they "measurable", "dividable", "comparable". what the measurements are, what they are composed of, how they function, how they are divided, what they are compared to, whether they are numerical or not etc. etc. is completely subjective. this is one of the concepts I see STEM students struggle the most with.

the fact that you have senses in the first place

>what the measurements are, what they are composed of, how they function, how they are divided, what they are compared to, whether they are numerical or not etc. etc. is completely subjective
But no matter what subjective and arbitrary system you use, "gravity" will always be "unequal" to "electromagnetism." Of course, those three terms are made up human concepts, but the things that are "actually real" behave a certain way that is only possible with the inequality. Or, phrased another way, without this inequality the things that are real would look much different, even if there was nobody around to catalogue it.

It's actually really simple
All you need to do is learn all sciences to a very high degree, learn how all tests were made to prove anything, including how all the machinery used to make those tests works at which point your senses will provide you with pretty much all of our science's worth of information