I was being silly, but for real even if there is an objective reality (reasonable but hard to prove) it’s going to be perceived reality that’s relevant for most human matters.
Strongly disagree. Your perception of what the most efficient method of energy generation is, is entirely irrelevant. Your perception of geology and biology is entirely irrelevant. Opinion and feelings are not acceptable substitutions for objective reality.
I’d argue objective reality is irrelevant, if everyone thinks Pelletiers are more efficient than stream turbines then that’s what’s going to get built. Maybe the use breeder reactors in the Realm of Forms, but here I’m stuck with coal because of PR.
If you want to argue that objective reality is irrelevant, then you need to abandon any and all notions of it. Jump off a cliff, objectively reality says you’ll die. Cut off your arm, objective reality says it won’t grow back. Drink bleach, objective reality says you’ll die.
You’d only argue against objective reality when it’s convenient for supporting beliefs.
No it isn’t. This is the basic laws of physics. Philosophy asks questions that science cannot answer. You’re not asking coherent questions, you’re making self-defeating claims without basis. That’s not philosophy, it’s religion.
Yes, the free market decides
I didn’t know reality was so malleable as to be manipulated by belief.
I was being silly, but for real even if there is an objective reality (reasonable but hard to prove) it’s going to be perceived reality that’s relevant for most human matters.
Strongly disagree. Your perception of what the most efficient method of energy generation is, is entirely irrelevant. Your perception of geology and biology is entirely irrelevant. Opinion and feelings are not acceptable substitutions for objective reality.
I’d argue objective reality is irrelevant, if everyone thinks Pelletiers are more efficient than stream turbines then that’s what’s going to get built. Maybe the use breeder reactors in the Realm of Forms, but here I’m stuck with coal because of PR.
If you want to argue that objective reality is irrelevant, then you need to abandon any and all notions of it. Jump off a cliff, objectively reality says you’ll die. Cut off your arm, objective reality says it won’t grow back. Drink bleach, objective reality says you’ll die.
You’d only argue against objective reality when it’s convenient for supporting beliefs.
You first!
This is well-trodden philosophical territory that I don’t think we’re going to add much to.
No it isn’t. This is the basic laws of physics. Philosophy asks questions that science cannot answer. You’re not asking coherent questions, you’re making self-defeating claims without basis. That’s not philosophy, it’s religion.
I think you don’t know very much about physics or philosophy tbh