You quoted me saying this: That which thinks, has a property not held by non-existence and therefor exists." when you were talking about cogito ergo sum. I think that that particular line only requires two suppositions, the ones I asked you which you were refuting. I'm not sure where immediacy comes into that particular quotation.
You realize that this is just a reformulation of the claim "The perception which corresponds with 'base reality' is true," right? It doesn't do anything to answer the question of what base reality is.
I really don't know how much more you're looking for. Is "That which exists independently of thought" lacking still?
You continue to make circular arguments. Why is science able to "pick out" true properties from false properties? What are some examples of "false" properties?
Science is different from most methods in that it is more a method to reject properties than to prove them. In fact, science essentially never aims to prove, but to disprove. It is only things that withstand a great deal of testing and scrutiny from a great many people that are added to the scientific worldview. And you have to recall that when I talk about science I'm always, always working under the four assumptions I made. As for false properties... Stuff like "the world is flat", "the sun revolves around the earth", "heavy things fall faster than lighter things", etc. Right up to the bigger stuff like time not being absolute.
[Just as a heads up, the word "property" is loaded in the history of philosophy, and has to do with an Aristotelian metaphysic that modern science doesn't like to associate with. It may be better to replace it with another term to avoid confusion.]
Well, I've never studied philosophy and don't intend to. I'm not really interested in Aristotle or metaphysics, and I've never talked with people who are so I've had no incentive to look into them. I'm not sure what other term would be better than property.
Making this probabilistic claim requires a root conception of reality (what you call "base reality") with which to make comparisons. I'd like to know what this base reality is like. What is the thing-in-itself?
That which is completely independent of thought.
Again, you've yet to explain why scientific understanding corresponds to "base reality."
One of the traits of science is that, at its core, it produces the same results completely independently of who seeks the results, where they seek the results, and etc. This makes it more likely to correspond to base reality than methods whose results do vary on who applies them and when.
--
Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it.