• Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Ironically, not a requirement.

      If you’re purely empirical/empiricist, you need at least one person to walk into a pole to prove it’s there.

      If you’re a rationalist, you could rationalise where the poles are.

      If you use both, you’re likely to hit yourself less than when utilising only one or the other.

      • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Until a Cartesian Solipsist points out that your senses are inherently fallible, it is impossible to prove that you are not a Boltzmann Brain, and the only thing it is possible to know with certainty is that you exist, in your present moment of experience. You have no valid proof that you didn’t run into a pole, let alone that other people are running into them more than you are, nor that the pole even exists.