That’s my point. But there are clearly any number of things in the either/or world that can be reasonably demonstrated to be true for all of us. Unless of course even this truth is embedded in a sim world, or a dream world, or one or another Matrix type reality.
In fact last night the Science Channel aired a Doc in which it was suggested that what we construe to be reality is instead just a computer simulation.
But: in the is/ought world, moral and political values are seen by me and my ilk to be largely “existential contraptions”.
And, re this thread, the truth behind something instead of nothing is so mind-boggling, no one would seem able to go much beyond the assumptions you’ll find [even among scientists] in “wild ass guesses”.
The fact that some are more informed than others doesn’t make them any less embedded in the gap between what some think they know now and all that can be known.
Apart from anything else it is beyond the ability of anyone to convince anyone of anything because they can only do that themselves
In reality however we go about the business of interacting with others in many, many different ways in many, many different contexts without having to stop and insist that others must first convince them that what they say or do is in fact true.
The best thing to do is make your arguments as sound as possible and leave others to decide whether or not they should accept them
Indeed, but, again, out in the world of actual human interactions, there are any number of contexts in which arguments collide such that resolutions revolve around either might makes right, right makes might, or moderation, negotiation and compromise is seen to reflect the best of all possible worlds.
And, here, over and again, I say bring the arguments down to earth. What are we in fact able to demonstrate as true for all of us? And what might we have to conclude are beyond pinning down?
Something instead of nothing being just one of them.