ANorthernSoul wrote:eXodus wrote:(...)
First, no something can't be perfectly, universally true. The Problem of Induction states that while we think that we know many things are universally true, such as "The sun will rise tomorrow", it does not mean that it was / will always be necessarily so. And as we can't experience anything beyond our own perceptions, we cannot know anything other than what we believe (falsely) to be true.
Second, given the limits of our perceptions, B could quite easily be A if we misinterpreted what A is. If there is a truth beyond our perception, or if there is no truth at all, then what one person labels something is of no significance. What if person X labels an object "red" (A), while person Y labels an object "green" (B). Who is colour-blind, who is 'right'? Both see a similar object, but different colours. Is perception statistical? What is 'joy'? What is 'pain'? What are the variations of both these sensations? The answers are too variable to pin any one truth, regardless of perception.
Third, your unperceived 'existence' or 'matter' would require someone or something to record it, and therein lies the problem: it is still perceived. The analogy of stars being recorded is flawed because if, as Berkeley irrefutably proves, bodies cannot exist without being perceived, then there exists the possibility that all the universe exists only in our mind, and is unconsciously created and destroyed by our perception. The recording would maintain the matter, yet the 'truth' of the matter would still be questionable. Unlikely, but not falsifiable.
The "Purity" problem is one of knowledge: we cannot know if something is purely, truly correct. We trust science because it (in tandem with philosophy) does not seek to tell us what knowledge is, but rather what it is definitely not. This circumnavigates the Problem of Induction: we do not KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow, we believe it will, based on the current physical phenomena that we have observed. But it is still only belief.
'Wisest is he who knows he does not know' - Socrates.
Without asumptions how would one even say there is NO universal truth to things. (Presumed impossible proof isn't proof of absence of possible proof - lol). Perhaps just like you can't investigate the opposite without assumptions.
If there is no such a truth it is a pretty important task to "label" stuff on a personal level, and even as a group. And also if there is some objective truth I fail to see why it would be of no significance to keep giving personal meaning to things. It is by the least a very healthy thing to do.
I agree, for all we know the whole of spacetime will crack open and our bubble will burst this very second. But that seems a poor reason to put every tool of study away as merely another thing to believe in.
Also if the bubble would burst more math! ^_^