Okay, I see where you got that interpretation from, and I admit that I hadn't explained myself too well. When I say that something either 100% exists, or 100% doesn't, I'm talking about the reality of a situation. Something either does exist, or it doesn't, something can't both exist and not exist at the same time. When we get into percentages, we express probability of something's existence based, hopefully, upon evidence. From here we get all sorts of faction rising up: theists, solipsists, materialists, spiritualists, postmodernists, &c., who all posit differing degree of how we should interpret perception.
For instance, a materialist would only care about what is demonstrable as a materialistic effect upon reality, like something falling to prove gravity, or feeling wind on one's face to prove that wind exists. On the other hand, a solipsist would question any and all evidence as simply possibly being a figment of their own imagination.
Since we two people have different perceptions on how to affirm what is real, our degrees of probability, the percentages we posit to whether or not something exists or not, would differ, and so therefore we can't apply them to one another as a convincing argument.
The bit about something either existing or not existing is what's applicable to reality, whether we can grasp that or not. It's the basic premise from which we build our perception of the nature of something. For instance, God either does, or does not exist, he doesn't partially exist, or partially not exist, but we don't know which one he is, and we have different views about how we determine the likelihood of his existence.
Does that clear up the problem?
For instance, a materialist would only care about what is demonstrable as a materialistic effect upon reality, like something falling to prove gravity, or feeling wind on one's face to prove that wind exists. On the other hand, a solipsist would question any and all evidence as simply possibly being a figment of their own imagination.
Since we two people have different perceptions on how to affirm what is real, our degrees of probability, the percentages we posit to whether or not something exists or not, would differ, and so therefore we can't apply them to one another as a convincing argument.
The bit about something either existing or not existing is what's applicable to reality, whether we can grasp that or not. It's the basic premise from which we build our perception of the nature of something. For instance, God either does, or does not exist, he doesn't partially exist, or partially not exist, but we don't know which one he is, and we have different views about how we determine the likelihood of his existence.
Does that clear up the problem?
