We should think in terms of tuned-in and not-tuned-in rather than by existence and nonexistence ⏳
Since Facts are only appearances which we have decided to believe are factual and “existence” appears to be meaningless (scientifically indeterminate forever) or some kind of Game rule in disguise, then we should not talk about it at all if we want to make sense. What we can talk sensebly about is the tuned-in and the not-tuned-in. The microscopic world was not nonexistent before we developed microscopes but was only not-tuned-in. The beauty seen by a painter is not necessarily nonexistent for a money-oriented business man but is just not-tuned-in, because it is not relevent to his reality tunnel.
If we talk about the tuned-in and the not-tuned-in, we can make scientific statements that are operationally and scientificallly meaningful, although limited by our space-time cooridinates. When we talk about existence and nonexistence, on the other hand, we make statements that can never be totally confirmed (When a system of thought becomes less than totally trivial, an infinite regress of challenges manifest and it becomes increasingly uncertain) or perhaps can never be totally refuted, which means we are making operationally meaningless statements.
It is not impossible that many “unscientific” reality tunnels explored by painters, poets, musicians, novelists, mystics, etc. may not be non-existent but simply not-tuned-in by those who have not practiced for years in tuning in to painter, poetic, musical, novelist, or mystic experiences.
References
- Wilson, A., Robert. (1986). The New Inquisition Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science Chapter 3 Two More Heretics and Other Blasphemies (p. 95 · Location 1894). Grand Junction, Colorado: Hilaritas Press.
Metadata
Type:🔴 Tags: Psychology / Philosophy / Epistemology / Ontology / Logic Status:☀️