We see things with different levels of quality, but we don't see things differently. The only thing that is different is our opinions and distinct physical features. You might have better eyes, but both of our eyes do the same thing.
I'm not proving the apple, the apple is proving itself to me. For instance. You prove your existence by talking with me right now without having to make a single argument. You could be a program or something, but for the sake of argument lets just say you're a person and you're standing in front of me. So you being in front of me is evidence of your existence. You tell me that the bundle of atoms standing in front of me is named Omar and I agree to accept that identity that you have assigned your bundle of atoms. That is a self evident proof.
We are not our senses. We are our perception. Furthermore, that sentence that you wrote was not a paradox. It was a tautology and tautologies are necessarily true assume that they accurately describe the thing they define.
Well pose the question again and I'll answer, but if you answer the same way as last time, we'll just end up back at you explaining why it's problematic so maybe just skip to the end and you tell me?
Incorrect. If I was a character in the game, I would at least know some of the rules. I would know that some unknown force (The Gamer) somehow can only make me do limited things (The Buttons) and I cannot be moved through certain objects (Collision detection Rule) I would know that when I'm not being controlled, I can't move anymore, except when I get transferred to this weird infinite loop where I do an oddly specific set of things that is always the same in each respective case (cut scenes). I did this with your chess scenario before as well. I knight knows that when something moves it, it always ends up in an L shape, it knows that if it crashes into an enemy piece that the piece it touches goes of the board and same if the knight gets touched. The knight will know that for some reason I never knows a piece of the same color off the board. Etc. etc. So to say we can't know anything about the outside forces is simply false.
Existence is not an assumption and we can and have proved it. There's just people around who are too stubborn to accept the proof. Identity law is a proof. Non contradiction is a proof. Math is a proof. Even if you don't trust science, there's countless truths that one can ascertain without any science. Even solipsists don't actually believe their own claims. That should tell you something.
Yes Human is defined a certain way that doesn't imply existence. You're right about that. However, Existence is defined in such a way that humans exist.
If I were God and I never met a human for some reason, then I wouldn't even know that god was a word. I would call myself what I called myself and it would be true by identity. If I did meet humans and they described what god meant and they were right, then I would know I was god. I don't know where you get this idea that truths have to be this giant tower of babel where each idea is stacked on another. That's not how it works. It's more like the skill trees in Sky Rim. You have a bunch of starting points and there are places where they branch off and not every branch is connect with the same base. If you want to ultimately derive it, Everything would converge at perception. But that would be the only ubiquitous connection in the tree.
You know... That's actually a pretty good question. I would divide that into two scenarios.
A) The force is random and has not mind. In this case, we would probably see enough instances of it to have a hint of something going on, but it would probably remain a mystery for a long time if not forever.
B) If the force is an intelligent agent that is able to pop in and out of reality on a whim, it would necessarily follow that the entity would have no way of perceiving us without at stepping into our reality first. So every time it pops in, it would have a random chance of winding up in the wrong place at the wrong time. If this being had a good spot picked out, it could mostly avoid this but would have to move spots if it ever got spotted. In this extremely wild scenario, I would say we could never know much of anything about his being unless it was by pure chance and maybe we caught it in a cage or it decided it wanted to meet us, etc. But this requires piles and piles of assumptions.
A, seems more plausible but would be way more easy to detect. We'd probably have enough information for a conspiracy theory to pop out of it.
B doesn't even seem remotely plausible, but I can't technically say it's impossible. So score one for you I guess.
Okay, so we might never know absolutely everything about gravity. That doesn't change that what we do know about gravity is a metaphysical truth. It works exactly how we predict that it will every time anybody in the history of the world has ever tested. Not one time ever has it failed. That makes it metaphysical until someone proves otherwise.
Your reality wouldn't be different. Just your experience of it.
