|
Reality is being defined by science as - our perception of the world is all that there is to the world, at least insofar as we can know the world. (eg to say I know there is a planet in our solar system that is undetectable by any human sense or instrument - is unsound).
"It is perhaps a logical convention that the one who positively asserts the existence of a given body is the one who has the burden of proof; but if he fails, it is not quite anything more than a legalistic logical move for us to deny that body's existence, instead of a suspension of judgment on the matter.
Does the burden of proof stand on the shoulders of the one who denies the sun's existence at midnight when it is invisible, or on the one who would assert it? I would say it is only a dogmatic logical legalism that can determine this question at all, based as it would be on simply conventional principles that have no bearing upon the nature of the sun itself, as it stands outside of any logical convention."
We can prove neither existence nor nonexistence; nor can we positively assert that all that exists are minds and their perceptions.
|