[tshaddox]

If you’re not a realist, just say so. Then we’ll know that there’s no point in engaging with your epistemology, because your epistemology also admits claims like “the Universe sprang into existence last Thursday,” or “I am the only entity that exists,” or “Jupiter doesn’t actually exists, it merely appears to exist.”

[coffeecat]

While I do reject realism, I disagree with all three claims.

> “the Universe sprang into existence last Thursday”

I have memories from before last Thursday; therefore, this claim would contradict what currently seems to be true. That's the best I can do. If you're a physicalist, you cannot deny this claim with certainty either: if electrical activity in the brain is truly the substrate of consciousness, then you have to admit to the possibility that you could be a brain in a vat, hooked up to some kind of world simulator.

> “I am the only entity that exists”

That would imply that I'm God. And I'm pretty sure I'm not God. Therefore, other conscious entities must exist.

> “Jupiter doesn’t actually exists, it merely appears to exist.”

To be is to be perceived, in my view. I don't think there's a meaningful distinction between the two.

[Brendinooo]

My epistemology admits that "the Universe sprang into existence last Thursday" could be true even if we might have no way of proving it; to me this is obviously far more correct than saying that it must not be true because we cannot prove it.

Doesn't mean I believe it's true, though: I think the point is more being willing to admit that humans might not be the pinnacle of existence, fully able to comprehend every mystery of the universe.