are there any valid ideas that disprove the existence of objects existing independently from our perceptions??

Question

or do things in fact exist independently from our subjective perceptions?

Answer 1

Well, since the nature of reality has been a central question in philosophy since before Plato, I don't think I can fit an adequate discussion inside the limits of the answer box here.

If I were you, I would read "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," by David Hume, "Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge," by George Berkeley, and "Critique of Pure Reason," by Immanuel Kant. Those are three of the most thorough discussions of the topic, and they come to different conclusions.

Answer 2

There are a number of theories of idealism (that is the metaphysical theory you're referring to), but I believe they are all fatally flawed. There are those who disagree with me, of course, but I don't think any of the idealist arguments survive their criticsm.

Some people try to argue that inconsistencies or flaws in perception suggest that the physical object being perceived is not really there (a la The Matrix). However, this is more likely to suggest that there is a problem with how we perceive. We are aware of a lot of different types of perception problems that give us reason to acknowledge the possibility of flawed perception (like near-sightedness, deafness, or what happens to your vision when intoxicated). Also, if there is some being or force generating the illusion of the world, it stands to reason that such a being, to be capable of such a feat, would be capable of getting it right.

Other idealists simply say that the physical world must not be there because we cannot conclusively prove that it is. This is absurd on grounds of epistemic weakness. We have a lot of reasons to believe that the world does exist (our perceptions, to name one, but there are others), so the mere possibility that it doesn't is nowhere near enough reason to believe that it doesn't. There are a lot of things that are possible, but it is only reasonable to believe the possibility that the evidence suggests is most likely to be true, and the evidence points strongly toward the possibility that the physical world is real.

Answer 3

As a student of physics I have pondered this question endlessly. This is what I have so far; Rene Descartes tried a thought experiment to see what exactly he could prove to be real. After clearing his mind, as best he could , of any preconceived bias he thought, What, do I know beyond doubt is true? The first thing he thought of was ' I think therefore I am'. He also , rather weakly, 'proves' the existence of god. In truth I have never made it past 'I think therefore I am' this is,really, all I can say to be true,or,that I can prove to be true.In life, I do go about my day as though there is an objective universe, in truth, I'm not sure I believe that. Why? Because I can't prove it.

Answer 4

Skepticism, while consistent, isn't very useful. Science assumes the existence of an independent reality (until quantum mechanics undermine that, another story) and tries to understand how it works. Offhand I'd say the scientists have been more successful than the skeptics.

Answer 5

The moment i say about that "valid idea" it will become your perception. Till the time, i do not tell that, assume there are objects independent of your perception.

Answer 6

in the God's introduction, we've considered in elementary terms the top of the ice berg. That too, besides the fact that we've considered no longer understood properly and thoroughly. that's what we call incorrect theory and phantasm and what you call as fooling of our sense. technology is the gadget. with the help of digging the universe with this gadget, we got here upon, are finding and could discover many things previous our theory. adequate info next to us. Animal & human clowning. Human strategies and laptop interface. With distinctive those man or woman never a protracted time or dies. are you able to alter into attentive to? What we are seeing and advantageous perceiving is a single image voltaic device. we are yet to work out and alter into attentive to different platforms and different independently present products in them. those are no longer philosophical yet cloth info. sturdy question. thank you.

Answer 7

No, you cannot disprove existence of objects that you are un-capable of ever perceiving.
Sure "the invisible pink unicorn" might as well be very real, but we will never see it, or experience it in any other way.
No just because "the invisible pink unicorn" MIGHT be real, does not imply that is should believe in it. In fact it EASIER not to believe in things that you cannot POSSIBLY perceive. I mean those things will never affect you in any way, so why worry about them, just put them out of your mind,

Answer 8

Try this thought experiment: when you die, does it all vanish?

If you answer yes, then I'm a figment of your imagination (is that rational?).

If you answer no, then it's all real, wouldn't you say?

Answer 9

yes there are. every time I leave a room all the things that are in it vanish. obviously, they aren't there without me to percieve them.

Answer 10

yes, sorry to break it to you but the world was not born with you