/sci/ - Science & Math

I don't feel attached to the presumption we can know something in the first place.
I suggest you ponder about why it bothers you and realize that caring is fairly irrational. Enjoy life as you witness it.

>>14798728
I don't need to cope because I don't particularly care about your theoretical fantasy about some unknowable "objective" state of affairs. I embody truth. Everything I perceive is an expression of truth. Even my most primitive gut feelings are an expression of truth.

>>14798779
>witnesses but does not experience life

I exercise the fat into nothing.

>>14798792
I like to watch

>>14798728
While you are thinking about this, Tyrone is busy getting your girl pregnant.

>>14798800
you’re right life is a movie

I don't have to cope about anything, its a stupid question. How do you cope with the fact that you don't know what color underwear I'm wearing today?

>>14798792
>experiences but doesn't live life
Wow...... wordcel rambling so deep........

>>14798813
Pink coz you're a fag

>>14798728
>How do you cope with the fat that nothing can be objectively verified as true
It's about creating predictive models, so the ability to predict outcomes reliably > "true"

>as what we call reality is contained within the flawed apparatus inside our heads?
Our brains are flawed but they do a good job especially when they are networked with other brains to exchange information and models of reality.

>>14798728
>How do you cope with the fat that nothing can be objectively verified as true as what we call reality is contained within the flawed apparatus inside our heads?
Please justify this claim. (Protip: You can't, it is self-refuting.)

https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo?t=1831

>>14799983
Everything you "know" is stuff you extrapolate from your senses. Your senses could be wrong. Your reasoning could also be wrong.

>>14799999
I'm your digit neighbor checking these amazing digits.

>>14800005

>>14800000
>Everything you "know" is stuff you extrapolate from your senses.
Please prove this statement using only extrapolation from sense-data.

>>14800048
>Please prove this statement
I can't. We've already covered this.

>>14800052
>I can't. We've already covered this.
Please justify the truth of the statement, then.

>>14800000
Checked btw.

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

>>14800058
>justify
Justify what?

>>14800062
>Justify
Give an epistemic justification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(epistemology)

>>14800070
Justify what? What part of my observation is under question?

>>14800077
>>14800077
>Justify what? What part of my observation is under question?
I apologize for being unclear.

The statement that "nothing can be objectively verified as true", do you mean this statement to be considered as objectively true, or merely your subjective opinion?

If objective, please give reason/justification to this end. Bearing in mind, that you still have to obey the same principle while doing so, without contradicting yourself.

>>14800094
>do you mean this statement to be considered as objectively true, or merely your subjective opinion?
It's neither.

>>14800098
>It's neither.
Is it objectively true, that the previous statement is neither subjective opinion nor objective truth?

(Is it because you don't believe it any more?)

>>14800107
>Is it objectively true, that the previous statement is neither subjective opinion nor objective truth?
Again, it's neither. Why are you struggling with this?

I don't, because I enjoy uncertainty and mystery.

>>14800116
>Again, it's neither. Why are you struggling with this?
Alright, so you admit that the principle you posited earlier is not true. Ebic win.

>>14798787
based

>>14800126
>you admit that the principle you posited earlier is not true
I admit that it can't be objectively established (though it may very well be true), which is what I said in the first place. One way or another, it's a rationally compelling observation to any mind capable of making it, so it's not just my arbitrary subjective opinion.

>>14798728
I love it

>>14798728
Why is bridge to terabithia everywhere suddenly?

>>14798728
Easily. Looking at the immense complexity of the universe, and the smallness of our minds, it's just obvious that we're brainlets in the big picture. We're just the smartest ape on a little rock, nothing more.

>>14800134
>I admit that it can't be objectively established
>it's a rationally compelling observation to any mind capable of making it
>it's not just my arbitrary subjective opinion
So you are distinguishing having direct access to truth, without any fallibility, from having rationally compelling (justified?) beliefs, from unjustified beliefs, if I interpret you right? I think these distinctions are useful.


You (I presume) stated earlier:
>Your senses could be wrong. Your reasoning could also be wrong.
I agree.

>Everything you "know" is stuff you extrapolate from your senses.
This amounts to basic empiricism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
which has the issues the previously mentioned Quine paper addresses.

>>14798728
Baby's solipsism.
Consider the fact that objective reality and objective truth exist, because if objective reality and objective truth did not exist, then it would be '''necessarily true''' '''that objective truth and objective reality does not exist'''.

Rephrased: Objective reality/truth exist because if they didn't then the objective reality/truth would be that the objective truth/reality does not exist, leading to a contradiction

>>14798728
As a quietist I realize that it normally just takes a few minutes of careful thought and maybe reading other perspectives on it to resolve this sort of apparent contradiction.

In this case, for example, if nothing is "objectively true" then there's still some achievable level of truthfulness or similarity to the actual state of affairs that people use in everyday life and refer to as "true" or "objectively true" and that level of truthfulness is both good enough and the only realistic candidate for what I'm thinking of when I say "objectively true".

That there might be some inaccessible actual big T Truth or big R Reality out there is basically irrelevant and worrying about whether or not it exists is pointless. You might as well imagine that Reality lines up with reality as you perceive it. No one can tell you otherwise, you'll never find out otherwise and there are no consequences aside from those that directly affect your attitude. My best advice to you is to not worry about imaginary bullshit, but if you can't swallow that just imagine that the bullshit is whatever bullshit would make you the happiest.

>>14798728
As a quietist I realize that it normally just takes a few minutes of careful thought and maybe reading other perspectives on it to resolve this sort of apparent problem.

In this case, for example, if nothing is "objectively true" then there's still some achievable level of truthfulness or similarity to the actual state of affairs that people use in everyday life and refer to as "true" or "objectively true" and that level of truthfulness is both good enough and the only realistic candidate for what I'm thinking of when I say "objectively true".

That there might be some inaccessible actual big T Truth or big R Reality out there is basically irrelevant and worrying about whether or not it exists is pointless. You might as well imagine that Reality lines up with reality as you perceive it. No one can tell you otherwise, you'll never find out otherwise and there are no consequences aside from those that directly affect your attitude. My best advice to you is to not worry about imaginary bullshit, but if you can't swallow that just imagine that the bullshit is whatever bullshit would make you the happiest.

>>14800155
How can I cope with the fact that bridge to terabithia is suddenly everywhere can't be objectively verified as true as what we call reality is contained within the flawed apparatus inside our heads?bridge to terabithia everywhere suddenly

>>14800209
>the only thing we know is that we dont know
awesome.

>>14800198
>So you are distinguishing having direct access to truth, without any fallibility, from having rationally compelling (justified?) beliefs, from unjustified beliefs, if I interpret you right? I think these distinctions are useful.
Something like that. For the purpose of this discussion, the relevant distinction is between being rationally compelling and being objectively true. Something can be rationally compelling, maybe even to the degree that only a madman could deny it, yet still be false.

>basic empiricism
Eh. I don't know about that. My concept of "senses" includes any kind of direct observation and comprehension. The ability to observe the structure of your own thoughts and contents of your own mind which constitute some sense of self would be included.

>>14800261
>For the purpose of this discussion, the relevant distinction is between being rationally compelling and being objectively true.
Alright, then it is not necessarily a debate about epistemology, but about the implications of human fallibility in reaching truth.

>Something can be rationally compelling, maybe even to the degree that only a madman could deny it, yet still be false.
Indeed. Beliefs can be justified, and still false. One would consider them knowledge, until their justification is undermined. We'd want our criteria of justification to fail as little as possible, and also to not be self-defeating. Anything that allows one to justify things arbitrarily would ruin this distinction, which is why we reject fallacies as being valid arguments. (I don't mean to be condescending, just elaborating).

>My concept of "senses" includes any kind of direct observation and comprehension.
>The ability to observe the structure of your own thoughts and contents of your own mind which constitute some sense of self would be included.

Ones sense of self is a kind of trancendental category, which we can't deny or even address or mention, without assuming. It can't really be proven from sense data, but has to be assumed to make sense-data and thoughts interpretable, and to make any statements meaningful.

>Everything you "know" is stuff you extrapolate from ~~your senses~~ your observations and thoughts and the content of your mind.

Now we are getting kind of tautological. Your justified beliefs, in your mind, come from your senses and whatever else is in your mind.

I'll see if the thread is up tomorrow. It's getting late in europe.

>>14800242
Patristic christian philosophy has stated something similar, that something can only be meaningfully considered 'real' if you can have some causal interaction with it in some capacity. So a parallel universe completely cut off from ours wouldn't be meaningfully real for any intents and purposes.

>>14800302
>It can't really be proven from sense data, but has to be assumed to make sense-data and thoughts interpretable, and to make any statements meaningful
But I just explained that when I say "senses", I'm including all direct observations and comprehensions, including your sense of self and everything you can observe about your own mind. It doesn't need to be deduced from anything, exactly like what you're seeing with your own eyes doesn't need to be deduced from anything, but it's also fallible in exactly the same way as what you're seeing is fallible.

>Now we are getting kind of tautological. Your justified beliefs, in your mind, come from your senses and whatever else is in your mind.
There's nothing tautological about it. What's true is true independently of any minds. What comes from my senses is not necessarily true, even if I'm compelled to accept it for lack of a better option.

>>14798728
>nothing can be objectively verified as true
You are where you are right now

>what we call reality is contained within the flawed apparatus inside our heads
Presupposes an observer therefore self-contradicting

>>14800353
>You are where you are right now
Which is where?

>Presupposes an observer therefore self-contradicting
Maybe the observer is an illusion, too.

>>14798728
Literally all you have to do is tentatively make educated guesses and deal with nonzero levels of uncertainty.
Really not a problem in the least. If it turns out you're a brain in a vat and everything you believed was a lie then there was nothing you could do about that regardless. Why be concerned about merely possible (and not even probable) hypotheticals which you have no power to change to begin with? Makes no sense.

>>14800363
>Which is where?
Where you are right now.

>Maybe the observer is an illusion, too
Who exactly is saying that if not you, you dumb nigger?

>>14800387
>Where you are right now.
How should I know where I am?

>Who exactly is saying that if not you
What am "I"?

>>14798728
>How do you cope with the fat that nothing can be objectively verified as true as what we call reality is contained within the flawed apparatus inside our heads?
Who is "we"?
Feel free to eat a diet of sugar and sweets, your cavities will destroy tour self-delusions of you (which you never attempted to define) creating reality really quickly.

Will your contradicting ideas (as quickly as things happen they are registered, therefore it cannot be that reality exists in what is registering what is happening, this is basic shit bro) be enough to cope with the pain? Report back

>>14798728
I wouldn't put it that way, even if actual solipsism is true, as opposed to to just epistemic solipsism, then there is still truth. Subjective and objective then become meaningless. If you stub your toe, the pain is true, even it's a mind generated reality and your own unconscious, which in this case your unconsciousness would be god, the creator of the universe, is the source of the data stream which creates both the virtual physical world and beams the pain into the observer, the pain can not be doubted. In other words, what ever the source of the data stream and whether it's a multiplayer reality or not, the pain is a truth. Also, if you fall in love with a mind generated girl with a simulated 'other mind', the love you feel is a verifiable fact. In other words, experience is a fact. Even dreams are facts. Actually all consciousness is truth. Who cares if some other non-simulated mind confirms it. Also, faith in god helps all of these type of quandaries. If solipsism were true, this would mean faith in yourself. Which is why I think solipsism is impossible and it collapses to theism.

And you can still verify some invariant physical facts as well. At least invariant until you die and the universe ends. You can verify heisenberg's uncertainty principle with two razor blades, some playdough and a laser pointer for instance in a single slit experiment
>The uncertainty principle is clearly revealed—the narrow slit produces a broader momentum distribution. In other words, localization in coordinate space leads to delocalization in momentum space. However, we can also treat this effect in a more quantitative manner.

>>14800363
This is a stretch.Conscious experience is self evident and can't be doubted. You must be conscious to doubt. So doubting is verification in itself that the observer is observing.

>>14800455
>Conscious experience is self evident and can't be doubted
Anything you can say about it can be doubted. Anything you can think about it can be doubted. Any conceptualizations you have of what it really is that you experience can be doubted. The idea that there is some "you" having an "experience" can be doubted.

>>14798728
>the flawed apparatus inside our heads?
Also I would just add that if you are doing the doubting of the outside world thing, then postulating a head that consciousness is located in is superfluous. The brain and head would be a part of the very observer independent reality you are doubting. So when you look in the mirror and see your head, this is a mental object rendered via a data stream beamed into you consciousness. And your mind renderers on an as needed basis only. Only upon observation and only at the detail you need for game play. It doesn't have to model the whole universe down to the minute level. It does not have to render the atoms in the desk your computer sits on. If you go to the beach, it does not have to render the sand under the surface sand. If you scoop out a scoop of sand, then it defines those values representing the next layer down of sand. And it also does not have to render brains, nor the brains of anyone that appears as a mental object in your mind. Unless you are a brain surgeon or something, in which case brains will be rendered as mental objects. The point is, since you are already assuming that physical worlds can somehow be beamed into observers by pieces of meat (brains) and presented as a simulation of a material world, the next step is to realize that you can cut out the middle man. There is no observer independent matter, including brains, and there is no need for the brain, in the brain in the vat scenario. You just need the data stream. It's actually comfy as hell by the way, idealism.

>>14800389
>How should I know where I am?
Intuition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G7wQK2TP7A

>What am "I"?
The stream of consciousness which has the continuous personality of a dumb nigger trying to castrate itself by the self-delusion that you don't know what you know perfectly well

To explain in more detail, everything you know about yourself by experience come and go, all your sensible experiences come and pass. Even your the syntheses that you try to make of your biography come and go.

But, if everything was temporary, there would be no thread of unity between one thing and the other, there would be only separate states. But if all those states, ideas and knowledge come and go you would need to have an infinite consturctive and unifying capacity to create a character with all those. Yet you can't even always link two contradicting ideas, you can't find a unity of them, how much more impossible would it be for you yourself to create the unity of your character?

So I supposet eh contrary, that there is a profound unity that isn't expressed, but is underlied in all those temporary happenings that are temporally unified thanks to the continuity of this profound "I", whose origin I don't know but with out doubt's is precisely what I call "I".

What makes you yourself is not any of the experiences you had, it's not the succession of states, it's not the succession of ideas, it's not the flux of words, it's nothing but a kind of thread that is beneath all that, stays constant and allows you to remember how you were at 6 years old while still keeping the feeling of personal unity. That is, you know you were yourself at that time. You remember yourself at that time and you can say it was the same you as you now. You recognize the "I" in what you remember of yourself that time

>>14800487
>Intuition
Intuition is wrong sometimes.

>The stream of consciousness which has the continuous personality
What's a "stream of consciousness"? What's a "continuous personality"? How do I know any of your contructs are adequate?

>>14798728
Touch your belly, is it fat? Then you arefat.

>>14800466
>Anything you can say about it can be doubted
Yes, and one needs to be consciousness to doubt, which affirms consciousness.
>true, and in doubting one realizes that it takes consciousness to doubt, which is again more affirmation and self evidentness.
>Any conceptualizations you have of what it really is that you experience can be doubted
But the fact that you ARE experiencing SOMETHING can not be doubted. And even if it could, this would be more affirmation that you are conscious, since only a conscious thing can doubt.
>The idea that there is some "you" having an "experience" can be doubted
No, it can't. Doubting itself is an experience, which again confirms experience. There might be other people who are also experiencing your data stream with you, I fact I assume god is with me, but this is not negation of the fact that the observer is observing.

>>14800487
Everyone knows this permanent "I" exists, without it you would never be able to tell your own story as you would need to have an almost divine constructive capacity which would be a miracle as you see, you yourself only having separated, atomistic experiences would need with your own creative force to invent a character (or persona) that can superimpose itself above all those things. That is, first you affirm the fragmentary nature of your experience and then claim you unified yourself? How? If you only have fragmentary experiences? How could you possibly unify all this? This is evidently self-contradictory and impossible.

See how crazy it is, some poor animal thrown in a flux of atomistic experiences manages to himself invents an a priori transcendental form of understanding and unifies himself? If you were not yourself before your experiences you could never experience anything. The profound unity of the "I" is the condition for any experience. And although this unity is necessary to experience, you only get conscious about it when you retroactively reflect about your experiences as when you reflect you realize you are reflecting about something that was inside that experience and was always there. In a sense, this unity is more real than the flux of experiences that came and passed.

You realize this feeling of the deep self/"I" is the only real thing, and only this your true "I", all else were elements that came and passed, some were incorporated others were not, others are gone forever, but that feeling of self is present and real, because all else is temporary, transitory. Like it says in the poem
>Les jours s'en vont je demeure

When you talk to another person this is profound self you're speaking to. You're speaking to the thing you think has permanence and unity, not with his temporary state.

>>14800517
>the fact that you ARE experiencing SOMETHING can not be doubted.
It can be easily doubted. "I think therefore I am" is at best "It be therefore it is", but you can question "therefore". What are you left with then? "It is"? Except you don't know what "it" actually is, or what "is" actually means. If you can say it, it can be doubted.

>>14800466
green text failure here
>>14800517
it should be
>Anything you can say about it can be doubted
Yes, and one needs to be consciousness to doubt, which affirms consciousness.
>Anything you can think about it can be doubted
true, and in doubting one realizes that it takes consciousness to doubt, which is again more affirmation and self evidentness.
>Any conceptualizations you have of what it really is that you experience can be doubted
But the fact that you ARE experiencing SOMETHING can not be doubted. And even if it could, this would be more affirmation that you are conscious, since only a conscious thing can doubt.
>The idea that there is some "you" having an "experience" can be doubted
No, it can't. Doubting itself is an experience, which again confirms experience. There might be other people who are also experiencing your data stream with you, I fact I assume god is with me, but this is not negation of the fact that the observer is observing.

>>14798728
By being a Chad "rolls with the punches" instead of Virgin existenticuck like you

>>14800316
>Patristic christian philosophy has stated something similar, that something can only be meaningfully considered 'real' if you can have some causal interaction with it in some capacity.
Interesting!

>>14800531
>It can be easily doubted
We will have to disagree on this. I am have trouble conceiving of what you are trying to say. It seems we are at an impasse. I am certain I am having an experience. I am not certain YOU are having an experience, but that I am is self evident.
>"I think therefore I am" is at best "It be therefore it is"
I disagree. I think therefore I am is legit. I am aware that there are many different attempts to counter the cogito, they are all failures though. You go ahead and doubt your own existence though. I believe you will be confirming the contrary though in doing so.
>Except you don't know what "it" actually is, or what "is" actually means.
I am talking about 'I', not it.
>or what "is" actually means
This is irrelevant. It seems like you are just trying to obfuscate and obscurantize in liu of having an argument.
>If you can say it, it can be doubted
I dis agree. But since you claim to be able to doubt that you yourself exist, who would be doing the doubting? Are you claiming to not know if you exist? I am having a hard time following.

>>14800518
Let's say you're talking to a person and you're certain the thing you're talking is just a temporary state that he will experience and disappear in the next second you can't talk with the person as it would be like talking to a shadow, a ghost, or some image projected by a flashlight.

So not only we have this feeling of internal permanence, but we also know the people we talk to also have it, those profound "I"s are what communicate.

But, this profound "I" doesn't have its own communication instruments. That's because all the communication instruments we have were received from an external medium: the language, of learning, etc. so there is always a delay

But the basis of every human interaction is the trust of that deep "I" in the existence of another deep "I". You can only address another person as a human being if you admit he has this unity, that he effectively exists, that he is not just a temporary impression of yourself and much less of himself. If you believed the other person were just a temporary impression you would also yourself only be a temporary impression and evidently all dialogue becomes impossible.

This consciousness of the permanent self can be reactivated daily or even be turned off as it happened in the pathological case of Descartes, who saw other people as simply machines, incapable of any interior existence, of interior life and subjectivity.

You can remember this on a daily basis, of who you truly are, and only when you put yourself in this position, when you acquire some substantiality, you can speak to God as an immortal soul addressing itself to the eternal spirit.

>>14800583
The only thing that's undeniably there is the substance of the experience itself, which can't be captured in language or directly grasped at with the rational mind. Any entities and relationships between entities you read into it when you start reasoning about it can be doubted.

>>14800592
And as we were created in that sense as immortal souls, the supreme identity of which Hinduism talks about does not exist (that you would dilute yourself in the sea of divinity). If you could dilute yourself in the sea of divinity you would have to also be a temporary impression to God, Who would integrate you in Himself and then proceed to forget you. But if it were the case that you were like a crystal that shows up in the water and then dissolves, God wouldn't have constituted you as an immortal soul.

So it's important you understand God has a personal love for this form He created, and he wants to preserve your immortal "I" as such.

To actually understand all this you need to put yourself from the point of view of the profound sense of self that accompanies you since you were born and stays identical to itself like an endless melody throughout all your life experiences. Nothing is more important than getting conscious of it.

In this case, you can remake your historical process having consciousness of that profound self, which you cannot do for others as you don't hold their sense of identity even though you recognize they have it (whether they realized it or not, it's still there).

>>14800058
it’s kant and hume so applied aristotle
things appear to your sensibilities, faculties of sense
things appear to the senses and the senses manipulate the thing sensed when they sense it
appearing in a form the senses can sense (detect)
which is not the thing of itself, independent of the sense perception of the thing

>>14800000
>Your senses could be wrong
And you would know that by... using your senses. Duh.
Rationalists are so dumb.

>>14800593
>The only thing that's undeniably there is the substance of the experience itself
So that confirms the ontic status of the experience and consciousness, the 'am'ness but also the 'I'ness. Consciousness would be the substance and substrate out of which the experience emerges but also the medium 'in' which it occurs.
>which can't be captured in language or directly grasped at with the rational mind
I would have to dis agree there. I have just done this.
>Any entities and relationships between entities you read into it when you start reasoning about it can be doubted
I would have to disagree.

>>14800642
>And you would know that by...
I don't know that. Low IQ post. Try again.

>>14800644
>So that confirms the ontic status of the experience and consciousness, the 'am'ness but also the 'I'ness.
If you don't have what it takes to be able to separate raw experience from its conceptualizations, I don't know how to help you.

>>14800649
>If you don't have what it takes to be able to separate raw experience from its conceptualizations, I don't know how to help you.
So no argument will be formed? OK. I guess it's safe to go on thinking and at the same time knowing that I am.

>>14798728
>How do you cope with the fat that nothing can be objectively verified as true as what we call reality is contained within the flawed apparatus inside our heads?

Oh so you're one of those retards? Suck on some of that reality then faggot! STOP HITTING YOURSELF STOP HITTING YOURSELF STOP HITTING YOURSELF STOP HITTING YOURSELF...

You done yet? Did you get enough of reality or you still want to argue with the totally inside your head first? Let's continue then

STOP HITTING YOURSELF STOP HITTING YOURSELF STOP HITTING YOURSELF STOP HITTING YOURSELF STOP HITTING YOURSELF STOP HITTING YOURSELF STOP HITTING YOURSELF STOP HITTING YOURSELF...

>>14800664
>So no argument will be formed?
If your mental faculties are lacking and you can't make that separation, we can't have a conversation about it. It's that simple.

>>14800155
airt
>>14800668
addiction and kung fu

>>14800000

>>14798728
>How do you cope with the fat
I can't.

>>14800000
Not only this, but logic itself is physical subroutine from the brain such that things that "make sense" are purely physical. So it may not even have any real meaning at all.

>>14800832
LOL. "Physical" flies out of the window as abstract nonsense long before "meaning" does.

>>14800832
only if you’re an atheist are the physical subroutines of the brain unrelated to the “real world”

>>14800839
God is dead. 2022 theists are the real neckbeard fedoras.

>>14800841
>God is dead. 2022 theists are the real neckbeard fedoras.
The religious will outbreed you dumb retards, thus winning on your own evolution mythology game which they don't even believe

>>14800849
The religious won't outbreed anyone because you're getting physically culled. lol.

>>14800854
>The religious won't outbreed anyone because you're getting physically culled
?

>>14800857
Two more years.

>>14800841
Until humans understand everything, God still lives. God is the human imagination for the unexplained

>>14800867
>God is the human imagination for the unexplained
False. Now the retards have emergence/trust the expert/simulation theory/neuroscience quacks and other materialistic cult dogma to plead to.

>>14800867
is this opinion derived from experience?

>>14800455
You're stretching Descartes' argument a little there. You need to exist to doubt, but you need not be conscious.

>>14800893
>but you need not be conscious
except when he assumes throught the argument a continuous self?

>descartes
>mind separate from body
>trapped in duality

>>14798728
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv-34w8kGPM

>>14798728
I cope by not caring about stupid rambling bait like yours OP. I don't give two shits if there is some objectively true perception of reality or whatever, I only care about how I perceive reality because it's the only possible way I can decide how to act within it.

>>14799999
Incompleteness isn't really a flaw. Mathematics is a system we've developed. It is useful. Not necessarily unique. Despite its usefulness nothing we've discovered really tells us about reality, we've just been able to make simple predictions, that's all.
Nothing wrong with that, but then people get smug, they think they have it all figured out and say shit like science disproves the soul and so forth.

so if there like proof death is real or is it just a convenience we use to tell kids why they shouldn’t jump of bridges

>>14798728
Proofs?

>>14798728
I cope by knowing we have the scientific method and I don't care that the apparatus inside my head is flawed as long since we can experiment, predict, witness results, reproduce them, etc.

>>14800000
checked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8tRDv9fZ_c