How does any of that relate to the original comment?

>Sensory experiences do not necessarily logically reflect a world out there

Linking your personal experience to the model of reality your mind has created is not in question here.

I pay my bills because evidence supports the idea that it's what keeps me warm and dry, but that's still a leap of faith I'm making, I don't actually know it to be true.

I know all about the incompleteness theorem, I'm not sure what you mean by unprovable truths, maybe my definition of truth is too rigorous for this conversation.

I don't know that there is such a thing, that's why I ask

Then what did you mean by that quote? Are you simply assuming there is an objective reality?

Yeah, the argument seems to be that a mind cannot exist without a universe to contain it but that assumes we know the nature of the mind/universe, unless I'm missing something.

Why would you think you're looking at anything unless you believe there is something there to look at?

>And persistent objective reality is why you can test and find illusions even though they deceive your senses.

Interesting, I wasn't aware there was proof of what objective reality is like to compare to, other than comparing to other flawed models.

Why?

What metric are you using to determine how close our experience is to objective reality?

Edit: I'm asking in good faith.

I've never heard that we can find the difference between our experience and objective reality beyond comparing our personal perspectives with each other.

Then they are not arbitrary in any meaningful or important way.