Theories can neither be proven nor disproven. Rather, their truth value, expressed as a set of tested predictions, can change. When people describe them as true or false this is either a simplification of their truth value or a reflection of whether their potential users decided to accept/apply them or reject/discard them, a decision which is based on need and not on something external.
I think you need a few days to clean your mind from the virus of this thread Magnus, and then come back to it.
The reason James came at you the way he did, is because if everything is exactly the same (no external) existence cannot exist, and that’s a contradiction, because, existence does exist.
In science a testable hypothesis has to be potentially falsifiable. Non testable hypotheses are not valid because they cannot be potentially falsifiable. Even
if they are true. And whilst theory and hypothesis might be interchangeable terms in common vernacular they have very specific and different meanings in
science. A theory is the highest body of work in science incorporating laws and principles to formulate a single unification and so nothing is above a theory
Whereas a hypothesis is at the other end of the spectrum and so is essentially no more than a reasonable guess or estimate based upon existing knowledge
What you have to do is to show to me that ultimate reality, such as ultimate dimensions of an object, can be sensed and not merely imagined.
Do you know the difference between sensation and imagination?
When you see, with your own eyes, an apple on a table, that is sensation.
When you imagine in your head an apple on a table, that is imagination.
When you imagine there is an apple on a table, that is projected imagination.
Projected imagination can be a random guess, or a guess based on personal preference, but it can also be an educated guess, which is a guess based on experience.
Whatever its from, imagination can never be anything more than imagination. It can never become sensation.
This is where language can confuse us.
In everyday parlance, the word reality is used to refer to BOTH what is sensed and what is not sensed but is imagined based on experience.
We say “there is a tree in our backyard” both when we are looking at it and when we are not looking at it but can expect it to be there based on our prior observations.
When one and the same word is associated with two distinct concepts, one must be careful not to conflate the concepts.
Senses and intellect are not equal.
Senses are fundamental.
Though predictions must refer to some sensory event in time, theoretical constructs need not. They can be as imaginary as you want them to be.
If you want to believe that every event in the universe is determined by some supreme being, that is fine, so as long you admit that it’s nothing more than imagination (that is not projected and that is thus without implications and beyond testing.)
The problem begins when you confuse theoretical constructs with reality.
When you fail to understand that things such as ultimate objects (or objects-in-themselves), causality, laws, etc are theoretical constructs and not reality itself.
Okay. But just a post ago you said that there is such a thing as ultimate length of an object. Won’t that be a contradiction? Unless, somehow, ultimate length is not an aspect of ultimate reality.