>No, you can't argue the world into being from these axioms. They could probably invent logic and mathematics, but nothing of the natural sciences can be discov

>No, you can't argue the world into being from these axioms. They could probably invent logic and mathematics, but nothing of the natural sciences can be discovered without the senses. It seems contradictory to admit they could invent math and logic, but then reject that they could go one step further and rig that understanding of math into and understanding of physics. I'll admit without some corpus of data to understand the motivation for constructing physics is tenuous. But the question was about the principle of if they could and if you're granting me math I don't see any obstacle left. >Phrasing is irrelevant. My senses are not little people talking to me about what they perceive Sure maybe your senses aren't actually little people, but if you've already evolved a social reasoning / grunting system that only knows how to talk about people, why not convert that into a system for reasoning / grunting about everything by imagining everything as little people. It might not be literally true, but its a useful fiction. Its a fiction that lets us hack "conversational reality consciousness" into "physical reality consciousness". The difficulty in twisting the phrase differently is supportive of this hypothesis.