In this post I attempt to put forward the idea that scientific endeavors only prove the universe as it appears to us, and that this perspective is true relative to us as the species who's science is in question. This post also covers mind-dependent and mind independent realities, suggests that the veil of perception is what separates the two and that this veil of perception is dependent on the senses we have.
A common opinion in science is the claim science seeks to prove reality. However science, as we understand it, is limited by our human senses. Science must be described in a manner our senses can detect and our mind can understand.
It is fairly uncontroversial that a bat detects its environment differently to humans. Consider the completely hypothetical scenario of bats being in the position of humans in our world; having well developed societies, being the dominant species on Earth, and gifted the ability of conducting and contemplating science and philosophy. Let's refer to the science these hypothetical bats conduct as "Bat Science".
Now given their different methods of detecting and experiencing the universe with echolocation and physiological differences, bat science may be completely different to our science. I argue this with the following reasoning:
Science does not describe what the universe actually is but what we view the universe as. Our view of the universe is limited by a veil of perception; caused by our senses and the way our minds interpret sense-data. Similarly, bat science would be subject to the senses of a bat and subject to a specific veil of perception unique to bats.
The discoveries and breakthroughs in bat science would be very difficult for us to comprehend as it would be explained in terms of bat senses. Phenomena which bats may be aware of that we are not would be easily explained in bat science. However human science would have absolutely no account of such phenomena at all. Hence, to us, such phenomena would not exist as there is no possible way for us to detect it through our senses.
If we cannot experience such phenomena, and we don't know that bats experience them, would such things actually exist?
Let's consider two similar, but separate, ideas of a reality which our minds perceive and is dependent on our senses to exist, and a reality from where our minds obtain information about the universe from and does not depend on our senses.
The mind dependent reality is the reality we experience everyday. The cars and buildings outside appear as they do because our mind processes the senses which detect the cars and buildings and translates that sense-data into something we can comprehend: shape, sound, colour, smell and texture.
The mind-independent reality is where our senses get their information from. You are aware there is a building outside because your mind and senses tell you so. But where do your senses obtain that information from? There must be something that exists, independently of the mind for your senses to get information from. These somethings are entities which exist in the mind-independent reality and influence what we observe in the mind-dependent reality.
A phenomena only a bat can detect would undeniably exist if you were to ask a bat. This is because that thing exists in the bat's mind-dependent reality. On-the-other-hand an unknowing human would say such a phenomena does not exist as it does not exist in a human's mind-dependent reality.
An analogous case would be the existence of colour to a woman who was born blind. She is told by the sighted people around her that colour does indeed exist though she cannot experience colour in the same way sighted people can. In her mind-dependent reality then; red, green, blue and black do not exist in the same way it exists in the mind-dependent reality of sighted people.
Science is limited to our mind-dependent reality and as such cannot explain the phenomena of the mind-independent universe. Hence, science cannot prove what is in the universe with authority however what it does do, and proves very well, are phenomena as they appear to our senses. There is a consistency still in mind-dependent realities which allows for scientific analysis of the things we see and experience. This is known as Phenomenalism.
