>mathematics differentiate between 0 and nothing
That's interesting, I didn't know that.
>If existence requires perception, what about that which is perceived yet does not exist
Great question! And may I assure you, there is no way to find out whether the object exists or not, without us conducting some experiments and perceiving
the results of it. It's easy to demonstrate with a phantom limb. Yes, one feels a limb is there, but when he looks
at it, he sees
nothing. When he touches
it with his arm, he feels
nothing. So, the man thinks, "OK, one of my senses tells me the limb is there, but many other sense tell me the limb is not there. I assume, the first one sense tricks me."
A similar investigation will be conducted in case of illusion, or hallucination. And if I don't know whether the object I see is real, or not, I will ask others about it. And if they say that can see
it too, I'll assume it is
So, there are generally two ways to obtain knowledge:
1. We perceive objects with our own senses.
2. We believe in concepts which we receive from others.
Pt. 2 seems to be a second hand tier knowledge, but even the pt. 1 bears its flaws. We know that perception is unreliable, and our trust in feels is just practical and can't be used to find out the truth. And the most depressing thing is, there is no other channel of information about the outer world for us.
>>Causality requires a first mover, a cause which is "put in motion by no other", otherwise we would have a infinite regress of causes
Exactly! That's why the "first mover" can't be found within existence. If "the first mover" was there, that would imply he had to have a cause too, agree?
Message too long. Click here to view full text.