When you think about it observation is the ground of all science, not matter. Matter is just a theory to explain our observations, but observations are the beginning of our knowledge.Can you name 1 thing you know about matter that didn't come from an observation? Absolutely 100% of our knowledge of an external world is built on observation and it could never be built on anything else. If you take any fact you've learned about matter and ask "how do we know that?" repeatedly you'll always find the chain of reasoning leads back to an observation.And here's the funny part - even if all of reality turns out to be a "simulation" then your observations are STILL TRUE. It's merely your deduction about your observations that ends up being wrong. That's the entire point of a simulation, to have you make a false deduction based on a real observation.E.g. if you observe the image of an "apple" and it turns out to be a hologram/simulation what you directly observed (the image) was the SAME you just made the wrong deduction about what that observation meant.Therefore observation is a more solid ground to build on, because it's the 1 thing that can never be fake even in a simulation. The entire concept of a material world is merely a deduction. It was NEVER known, which is why people can never be sure if we "live in a simulation or not".And think about it: Observation itself is the only thing that's actually needed, there's no need for an "object" of observation.With observation alone any possible reality (including those of matter, and even ones without matter) can be fully created.If you say observation is an illusion then you're also saying that everything else you think you know was built on top of illusion.>inb4 define observationDon't ask me, if you follow the scientific view of reality then YOUR view is rooted in observation too so if YOU don't know what observation is then YOU know nothing at all.Observation is simply a truer axiom of reality than matter.
Have you ever observed something you DIDN'T need philosophy to describe and understand? No, no you haven't. Philosophy+Observation=Sciencehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymHyOmlUlP0
>>16260261Actually yes. Pain is a great example. Every living thing already knows what pain is from the moment they're born, they don't need to learn pain. They do learn what things in the world will lead to pain, but pain itself is already known.Because such is a direct observation. Same goes with vision, color is known without needing a philosophy to know it. Sound is known. Touch is known.All direct sources of observation are known without needing something else to know them.
>>16260174based Escher i think people use to think like this a lot more, before pragmatic materialism shit made muh floating ball of rock everyones dogma. its where so many 'pseudosciences' came from. the problem is we only have 5 senses
Yes, everyone knows this, right?
