>>13788012The point is that experiment doesn't prove "existence" for any strong notion of existence.
There's no good argument that you could bridge the gap between perception and "the real."
For a classical analogy, if you watch a super high definition screen with a realistic movie of a pretty garden scene, then you could tell from just the perceived information that the data ultimately stems from the bits and btyes streamed off of the USB drive plugged into your showing-device. There's a gap between the assembled perception and the source, to the extend that you can know almost nothing about the source.
You can't know a chair you see "exists", unless by exist you just mean the phenomenon. If you postulate that the source that gives rise to the perception is fundamentally very close to what you perceive, and you imagine that because you have spatial understand, something like space "exists", then you take a realist view.
Taking a realist view is the pragmatic thing to do, but it's not rational. It's not derived, it's making a choice not to bother further with that which seemingly can't be known. It's the judgement that there's little to gain from metaphysical speculation alla Kant, Hegel, Whitehead and the French postmodernists.
To be aware of that step is more rational than what the guy in the video does, namely to adopt a philosophical position (what I called the "pleb Indian engineer position") in a non-self-aware fashion. To conflate ones desinterest for metaphysical problem with the idea that "reality" equals science and that that would be an undisputable truth that only esotetic feminist moms have a problem with.
