A more formally logical way of presenting the above argument, with “a world” being defined as that which can be perceived by a conscious being through its senses, is as follows: 1) There is no way in which we can know the world, other than through our senses. The only reality we can know is phenomena. 2) Our senses give us only some information about the world. 3) The things we can perceive can be considered in our world, the things we cannot perceive can be considered to be in other or different worlds. Therefore 4) As there are many things we cannot perceive there are many worlds other than our own. 5) There is no reason to consider that any world is more real, truer or more valid than any other world. 6) If there is no reason to believe any one world is truer or more real than any other, they can only be treated as equally true or real. Therefore 7) Any one world is as valid and real and true as any other. 8) There is a wide variety of senses, and each sense has thresholds which limit perception. 9)Therefore, there must be a wide variety of worlds. 10) As the senses of different people and species overlap some of the worlds overlap. 11) As any being may have senses which are quite unlike those of any other being many of these worlds will not overlap. Such beings will live in totally separate worlds from those of other beings. 12) There seems to be no reason to believe there is a finite limit on the range of potential sense organs. Therefore 13) There is no finite limit on the number of potential worlds that may exist. Reality appears to consist of a vast number, possibly an infinite number, of sensory worlds. Each person has their own individual world. This is the world they perceive which is always different from the world perceived by others. Variations exist from person to person due to each person occupying different points in time and space and due to the quality of the individual person’s sense organs. Each species has its own world due to the tendency for members of each species to have the same sense organs which will tend to function in a similar way within each member of the species. There seems to be no good reason for favoring any one of these sensory worlds over any other of them. It seems impossible to claim that the human view of the world has any special claim to validity when an alteration of our senses will give us different sense perceptions. How can you say what you perceive is, when the same thing can be perceived with different sense organs and it can be something quite different? If the human view was to be preferred, it would be no more than a case of a human centric view of the world that is not capable of any real justification.
Rochelle Forrester Best Publications Limited 14 Longcroft Terrace Newlands Wellington New Zealand Copyright © 2014
Leave a Reply