Hugh Johnson
Member
There is a difference in saying something is hypothetical, and something not existing. Other than that you require blind faith, which I don't do. If a hundred people see a tree falling on a computer screen, there is still no tree or falling, just pixels changing colors.You said its' existence is "purely hypothetical." When the existence of something is not proven, not even to some extent as the formulation "purely hypothetical" implies, it doesn't exist, as far as semantics and common sense discourse are concerned. Maybe you should work on your comprehension of basic semantics. I already explained why scepticism leads to solipsism. I am not going to explain it again. Read my post or do a quick google search.
When 100 people stand in front of a tree, and they all see the same thing (with slight variations in perception), and agree that it conforms to the commonly accepted mental concept of a tree, why is that? There obviously seems to be a common source that leads to the conceptualization of a highly similar object in their mind. Every sane person that accepts basic common sense philosophy will agree it's because they all perceive the same thing in the world.
Can you please stop asking me to provide a proof for the existence of the material world like you're a broken record? I already explained that's impossible. Common sense philosophy and empiricism are built on the 1st axiom that the material world exists because it is by far the best hypothesis, and science would be meaningless without it. The most elementary common sense and the most sophisticated science all share the same conviction: the objects we perceive through the senses have a reality that is independent of us. Those are not my original thoughts, this premise has been accepted by everyone from Locke, Hume, Russell, Einstein, Popper to Peat. You can either accept it, too, or remain mentally stuck in your cartesian solipsism.