We perceive we exist. Perception is what we have to inform us of the nature of subjective reality. Obviously people have differing perceptions and different subjective realities, but one can build an objective reality by using the consensus of individual's subjective realities
I don't think so because if if is all subjective and we use comparisions to find similarities in the subjective realities we have not found objective reality we have just found similarities. Sounds like the saying: "50 million Frenchmen can't all be wrong".
I didn't say one could determine 'actual' reality, I said one could BUILD an objective reality (admittedly built on subjective interpretations of others' expressed subjective realities).
It is for me a better option than wallowing in existensial bullshit.
And to me, unless actual reality IS significantly removed from my perceived reality (I am being dreamt or am dreaming, for example), then indivdual subjective errors can be highlighted by accepting that actual reality is most probably deriviable from the consensus of subjective realities. Obviously it depends on the removal between actual reality (which is arguably undeterminable) and ones subjective reality, but at least it leaves you somewhere practical; there's a monkey in the White House, we could provide everyone on the planet with clean water soources if we didn't buy any new weapons for a year, etc..
Other constructs are just too vauge and irrelevent to me, even if they can not be proven wrong.
One can say within that context that obviously we exist so either things should exist as a matter of course (as they are here), or the 'dice of Universe formation' fell in a favourable way so that on this occasion things exist (but it might not always work out that way).
I don't think we ever can say with certainty "Obviously we exist" we can only say "it seems Obviously we exist" of course existence can have many shades of meaning.
The statement I made above, "obviously we exist" is built upon the previous paragraph which essentially as a simplification assumes it is most likely that objective reality is approximable by the consensus of subjective realities. Doesn't mean it is, but if it isn't then we have no hope what-so-ever of knowing what, if anything, is going on.
And then we have to say there is no rule that autoratively states that nothing or something must exist.
Is there? How do you know?
There is no law maker god that can make such a statement.
Is there? How do you know?
The universe is the way it is not from following laws,,(humans make laws),, it just is,,maybe it is just pure consciousness taking different forms to explore the pure mystery of what it is from many different angles???,,experiencing what it's like to be a atom, a planet, a cat, a ocean, a human with contemplative powers and so on and so on,,that's a fanciful idea I know, and probably dead wrong,,but that is the nature of this existence thing.
Maybe shmaybe. Essentially you are giving a very heavy consideration of everything NOT being as it seems, without anything to support the propostion. Wither Occams Razor? As there is no way we can really determine if things ARE as they seem or not, one can either wallow in fantasy land or decide that what we percive to be real is good enough to be getting on with.
I don't think there's any data to support alternate conclusions, not that that stops people. Many people see the self-falsifying nature of an argument that runs 'something can't come from nothing so god had to do it'. Others ignore it, or pretend they have explained it (when their explanation is basically 'because I say so'.)
I don't think there is any data to support any conclusion. At least not any concrete objective one.
Which is why I am suspicious of the entire 'we may not exist' banter and spiel. It seems to be creating a new mythology of uncertainty and the unknowable... and god's ashes aren't even cold yet! It allows people to essentially do what the worst example of religionist has done for centuries under a superficially modern set of reasoning that is actually backwards and essentially supersticious in its nature, for all the ineffablness of it.