In light of that I have the ability to mentally create possibly fictional realities based on the doubt of �apparent reality from my sensual perceptions and common understandings from those senses (such as sight, sound, and common assuming thoughts)�, and that the amount of possibly fictional realities that I can create is a seemingly endless one (reality is one, another reality is two, and so on to eternity), I can conclude that since evidence isn�t a factor because of it�s dependence on a perception which I doubt, and no possibilities (possibilities=possibly fictional realities) can possibly have truly �valid� superior evidence because of the seemingly improvable invalidity of truth to my doubt concerning perception of evidence being valid , every possibility becomes entirely indeterminable as superior validity to the other possibilities (since they all don�t have any more valid evidence than the other possibilities). Thus all possibilities, which are infinite, become equally valid by the universal and equal indeterminability of validity inherently within each one of them.
The argument that physical and practical evidence of a possibity makes that possibility more determinably probable is untrue. You cannot prove the existence of superior probability by physical or practical evidence since you can't disprove the valid doubts which cannot be refuted (again, we can't logically reach beyond our perceptions). The only possible way for us to not worry about indeterminability is to become omniscient, then we don't have to determine anything. I find it inconcievable that even a omniscient being could be concious of his omniscience. I suppose I'm saying this again, but some people don't understand my current consensus of the theory, so I have to reword it, for them.
To put this into a more practical and understandable form , I'll give you a example: Lets suppose that there is a dog who is deaf, blind, can't smell, and can't feel anything of any sort (unless you are talking about mental feelings, which have not significance to perception, unless that is perception of one's own feelings, which could also be incorrect, haha!). He is sitting on a concrete slab only a couple of meters next to a aging tree. The concrete slab has a infinite perimeter. Every bit of the slab is adequately lit. Now lets suppose there is a plant that sprouted hundreds of years ago from the ground underneath the slab, broke through it and is now a adult tree. It's been hundreds of years and the tree is nearing the end of its lifespan. When it dies, it eventually rots to the point of which it incurs the action of a man nearby to say,"Timber!" This tree was extremely large, and was very visible. As it collided with the slab it did not shatter into tiny pieces, infact, it stayed entirely intact. When it hit the ground, it made a noise any lifeform with hearing ability would of heard throughout the universe. Also, when it made contact with the ground, it's vibration was the greatest vibration ever. The tree did not land on the dog. Any of the tree's debree caused by the collision to the concrete did not come into contact with the dog. However, a few feet next to the dog. The dog was not aware what-so-ever of this. But the tree really did fall. The dog will never know so, at least by his own perceptions and not of assistance from other beings. That is the point I was trying to convey, it is indeterminable to the dog that the tree really fell. How can we ever know of external factors beyond our senses and understandings? We can't. And since it's impossible to disprove the possibility that unknown external factors (since we can't get beyond our own senses) may affect our perceptions, everything becomes indeterminable. All ideas of the universe, however insane or absurd they seem, become equally valid because of the possibility of unknown external factors that may affect our perceptions and make them false. I can't make the idea any more simpler than that(presently). |