Here is a version that seems to float around:
I can use evidence in a positive sense for all of the everyday world.
Well, I can't. Now I have been asking how that is explained and it so far always end in an opinion:
I am of that opinion that what everybody else actually do for the everyday world is irrelevant.
That is all fair and well, but as fas as I can tell, that it is irrelevant is an opinion and without evidence.
That is it. We can nitpick the words, but as I understand the usage it always ends here:
Not everything in the everyday world can be done with evidence of all human behavior.
Unfortunately for your little rant here, there remains a glaringly obvious point (if one takes the time to think it over) that casts your ideas in doubt. That is, the idea you have that the "material" world of evidence and measure cannot stand as the foundation of various abstracts, and so it is somehow deemed "deficient."
You ready? Because based on how lively you throw around the ideas of solipsism, you should be ashamed if you haven't thought this one out to its obvious conclusions.
Pretend there is literally a mind being kept alive in a vat. In this scenario, however, this mind, receives
zero external input. None. No sound. No sight. No touch. No taste. No sensations of any kind.
As this mind develops, I would ask that you think of the kinds of thoughts this mind would be capable of having. Without access to a MATERIAL world of "things" - what sorts of thoughts could the mind come to? Could it come to the abstract idea of something like
love? How could it, with zero understanding or knowledge of even a single target? No physical touch. No ability to see and read the expressions on someone's face. No sound waves affecting the matter of the world around them to hear various intonations and perceive them as positive or negative. Nothing like that. "Love" could not be come to, I am afraid, without the material realm supporting the various aspects of that abstract.
The abstract is literally built on material interactions! The best this "vat mind" might be able to muster is some rudimentary form of "what is this?" There wouldn't even be an understanding of what "where" meant - for it has not seen or experienced "placement" of any kind.
So now what? Can you honestly posit that it doesn't take a slew of sensory inputs for us to learn nearly any and all abstract concepts? And doesn't a sensory input serve only as an
interpreter to the MATERIAL world? Oof. There goes your ideas in a puff of smoke, I believe.