As I've just said, it's a scientific question, and it hasn't been answered yet. Yes, the question of the indiscernible and the intangible should be examined by field a knowledge which strictly considers things that can (potentially) be tangibly seen, touched, smelt, heard, etc., Right, so you don't 'see' this 'unseen reality' in any way then, you just kind of say that it's 'there', for whatever reason. Does one "see" a thought of their own? Clearly your "mental eye" isn't as keen as it needs to be.
Yes, the question of the indiscernible and the intangible should be examined by field a knowledge which strictly considers things that can (potentially) be tangible seen, touched, smelt, heard, etc., You're assuming that it's intangible. EDIT; By 'intangible' I'm assuming you mean non-physical, otherwise there would be no valid reason to use that word. Does one "see" a thought of their own? Clearly your "mental eye" isn't as keen as it needs to be. What? I quoted 'see' because you said that you don't 'see' the world outside of the senses in the same way that I do. As far as I'm aware, the concept of the 'Noumena' doesn't actually have any statements about the way things are outside of the 'Phenomenal' world. So therefore you don't 'see' this 'unseen reality' in any particular way, you just say that it's there, k?
You're assuming that it's intangible. "Realism posits a world outside of the senses" Lol, so I'm merely assuming that a world, or a thing, outside of the senses, is in-tangible, really? Boy, you sure are a little too smart for your own good. What? I quoted 'see' because you said that you don't 'see' the world outside of the senses in the same way that I do. As far as I'm aware, the concept of the 'Noumena' doesn't actually have any statements about the way things are outside of the 'Phenomenal' world. So therefore you don't 'see' this 'unseen reality' in any particular way, you just say that it's there, k? Again, you're just a little too smart for your own good. All phenomenon (such as the objects of one's imagination, or concepts about an 'unseen' world) aren't "seen" or observed by the eye. Derp.
I think you two have hit a metaphysical brick wall. The objectivity of an external reality is what is called a basic belief or axiomatic assumption, essentially a tool or model we can agree upon to build knowledge. It may not be actual but its somewhat necessary to discovering the probability of other provisional truths.
Lol, so I'm merely assuming that a world, or a thing, outside of the senses, is in-tangible, really? Boy, you sure are a little too smart for your own good. We were talking about a 'brain' when the the topic of intangibility was brought up by you. I'm not too sure whether this re-direction of the topic was intentional, or whether you just forgot what it was that you were originally talking about. So here's a post to remind you; Again, you're just a little too smart for your own good. All phenomenon (such as the objects of one's imagination, or concepts about an 'unseen' world) aren't "seen" or observed by the eye. Derp. Maybe if I typed more slowly next time.
We hit a 'brick wall' the moment the conversation began, and I was never (and still am not) expecting it to go anywhere - it's just slightly entertaining. EDIT; It might even be more entertaining if Boats could remember his posts & stop concocting word salads to serve them up as though they were arguments.
Why "must" ? Any sophisticated enough simulation of reality (provided we have one) would comparatively easily feature a fabricated history. This isn't really complex. Part of truly simulating reality is simulating the events that led up to current thought. If reality as we know is successfully simulated, then history is simulated even easier. Creating a collective, or individual "now" is harder than creating a fabricated history, regardless of span.