Note, once more, how his OP directly relates to science and physics - they being the study of the order between sensed-things - since he asked, specifically, about a 'thing' whose only existence is that which we have 'sensed'. But he doesn't want science or physics brought into the discussion!
Note, also, how he astutely ignores addressing the points raised by myself and others, and simply tries to get people to play by his own rules.
"Here, fellows, we're going to play baseball. But I'm the only one who can use a bat, ball, glove, or run the bases; you guys just stand there and cheer. OK? Now, I can beat you all in baseball!!! See?"
Yep - it's that simple.
BTW - LG - You are not the 'primal cause' of your sensations. You are the receptor, processor, and experiencer of said sensations, which are biochemical signals processed by the neural system within the body that is you, in response to / caused by series of external stimuli that act upon specific bodily systems which you possess. In other words, things beyond you are the cause of your sensations.
If you reject this concept, you must demonstrate what the cause of said sensations are, in a concrete and tangible fashion. Further, you must define and demonstrate, in a concrete and tangible fashion, the mechanism of the generation, transmission, translation, and experience of said sensations, concretely and tangibly. If you insist on rejecting reality as experienced through the senses, you must provide concrete and tangible evidence of a reality beyond the senses, and this must be incontravertable, logical, and consistant evidence. Now, I agree that reason and logic are the only tools one has to determine the nature of things beyond our senses of them; however, if you also remove sensory experience from the foundations behind reason and logic, you are left with nothing at all.
At best, you are trying, hope against hope, to demonstrate logical inconsistancies in this reality (your 'sensed-reality') - yet EVERY attempt you have made to do so has shown that you lack a fundamental grasp of logic, reason, or even the basics of the very concepts you attempt to argue against.
LG - "Look, reality cannot exist because clearly one plus one cannot equal 19."
US - "But one plus one equals two!"
LG - "Yes, but in my definition of sensed-reality, one plus one equals 19 - which it clearly cannot do, therefore, sensed reality is false!!"
US - "... what?"
Case in point: infinite space and the implications of distance between fixed points.
Case in point: the existence of hypothetical objects whose dimensions are less than the spacetime they hypothetically occupy.
Case in point: difficulties reconciling a non-dimensional mathematical 'point' with real objects occupying infinite points in real spacetime.
And the list goes on and on and on...
If I wanted to argue the qualities of baroque architecture versus gothic architecture, I'd first have to fully understand and appreciate both styles of architecture. If you want to argue the qualities of physics, mathematics, QM, and the science of the sensed-reality, then you have to first fully understand and appreciate these things. Until you do - you are arguing from the void, a voice of ignorance bleating like a lamb in the field.
"On yer knees, plonker."
