What is your position on the existence of an external reality independent from humans?
a) There is nothing outside me. I’m the only mind and the only entity in the universe.
b) It’s not epistemically proper to assume a priori the existence of an external reality. We can hypothesize the existence of external entities as part of a model to explain our sensory experiences. It is not meaningful to discuss about the difference between entities that are part of the model (the “map”) and entities that are part of an independent external reality (the “territory”).
c) There exist an external reality independent from humans which determines our experiences. It’s epistemically proper to assume this a priori rather than consider it an hypothesis. It’s meaningful to discuss about the difference between between entities that are part of the model (the “map”) and entities that are part of the independent external reality (the “territory”).
d) Like c), but in addition to physical objects, the external reality also contains mathematical objects such as the natural numbers, Euclidean/Riemannian geometry, the Turing machine, etc.
Options b) and c) seem to be conflating two things, realism vs. instrumentalism and a priori vs. a posteriori. I would say that the most reasonable realist position combines elements of your b) and c). We could say that, e.g., electrons are independently existing entities, and that one can distinguish meaningfully between our theory or model of electrons and electrons themselves, while also saying that it is not epistemically proper to assume a priori that electrons exist, but one should only hypothesize their existence if this is part of the best explanation of our sensory experiences. The same happens for all “external reality”.
What is your position on the existence of an external reality independent from humans?
a) There is nothing outside me. I’m the only mind and the only entity in the universe.
b) It’s not epistemically proper to assume a priori the existence of an external reality. We can hypothesize the existence of external entities as part of a model to explain our sensory experiences. It is not meaningful to discuss about the difference between entities that are part of the model (the “map”) and entities that are part of an independent external reality (the “territory”).
c) There exist an external reality independent from humans which determines our experiences. It’s epistemically proper to assume this a priori rather than consider it an hypothesis. It’s meaningful to discuss about the difference between between entities that are part of the model (the “map”) and entities that are part of the independent external reality (the “territory”).
d) Like c), but in addition to physical objects, the external reality also contains mathematical objects such as the natural numbers, Euclidean/Riemannian geometry, the Turing machine, etc.
Options b) and c) seem to be conflating two things, realism vs. instrumentalism and a priori vs. a posteriori. I would say that the most reasonable realist position combines elements of your b) and c). We could say that, e.g., electrons are independently existing entities, and that one can distinguish meaningfully between our theory or model of electrons and electrons themselves, while also saying that it is not epistemically proper to assume a priori that electrons exist, but one should only hypothesize their existence if this is part of the best explanation of our sensory experiences. The same happens for all “external reality”.