Constantinos
My point about the 'blank sheet of paper' was to invite others to think about it. After all, I have been providing the answer in postings for some time. Anyway, a short version is below. This of course runs the risk of not 'covering off all the angles', it takes about 15/20 pages to do that. The crux of the argument being that it is very easy to presume a flawed constitution for physical existence, and then develop a theory based on it.
In short:
The start point is that there is existence of some form or other. But by definition, being aware of it, means that we can only know of, what must be presumed to be, a particular form of existence. Which could be characterised as having 'detectability', or the proven potential thereof based on previously verified detection and knowledge of the physical process enabling that. This is because we cannot transcend the physical process underpinning awareness.
So whether there 'are' alternative forms of existence to this, or whether this is 'really' existence, is irrelevant, because we cannot be aware of them. This is what we must analyse. The entire circumstance for us comprises awareness caused by a form of physical existence, which after processing results in either knowledge or not-knowledge. Knowledge being the equivalent of the form of existence available to us, as at that time, not-knowedge being belief.
Awareness involves sensing physical existence, ie receiving physical input (which includes both what is received and what can be hypothesised as potentially receivable). Receiving being in the line of travel and interacting with. For this to occur, there must be something which is independently existent of the detection systems, since it involves receipt, and because otherwise those detection systems would never have evolved. The subsequent processing of what is received is irrelevant to the physics. The fact that a sentient organism, as opposed to an inanimate entity, can utilise what is received can have no effect on physical existence.
The ontological/epistemological conundrum being that as we cannot transcend the form of existence available to us, any comparison with what 'actually' happened is not possible. Whilst the physical processes which result in what we receive are not physically perfect, and/or we are able to 'enhance' awareness of the resultant physical output of those processes during subsequent processing. So, in establishing knowledge, and differentiating it from belief, these issues must be overcome.
Furthermore, while what is received is, of itself, physically existent (ie light, noise, etc), it is only a representation of what physically occurred. Because it is the result of an interaction with that, and enables awareness of it due to the evolution of sensory systems. A feature of these phenomena being that the physically existent state of the representation (ie what is detectable) does not alter (or nearly so) whilst in existence.
The differentiation between the physical phenomena received, and those which caused them, is critical, as:
-what is received is only a representation of what physically existed
-the phenomena involved in capturing and transmitting this representation have physical properties of their own which influence the extent to which they can effect this acquired functional role, ie representing reality perfectly
-there is always a time delay between physical occurrence, and the receipt of any representation.
Our physical existence comprises those existent phenomena which are sensorially detectable by any organism (or proven they could have been so), and the phenomena then proven to have caused them. Proof of existence being based on verified experienceability, either directly or indirectly effected.
Given the input received, we can identify that the form of physical existence we can know has two fundamental characteristics:
-what occurs, does so independently of the processes which detect it
-it involves change/alteration, ie comparison of inputs received reveals difference
This means that the physical existence we can know is existential sequence. The entirety of whatever comprises it can only exist within that sequence in one definitive physically existent state at a time, as the predecessor must cease to exist so that the successor can exist. In sum: to be physically existent, by definition, entails no form of change or indefiniteness in whatever is existent at any given time, change being a feature of the difference between physically existent states. And therefore, physical existence is a spatial phenomenon, which alters over time.
Paul