2 Answers

  1. I will develop the idea of the responding colleague.�

    The idea of J. Berkeley ( namely, it is reproduced in anecdotal form by the questioner) is more subtle and interesting than the textbook statement “to exist is to be perceived”. But even in this form, Berkeley's thought is not removed by the question. For the existence of a thing is given not in a single sensation ( as a rule, not directly-thanks to a colleague from Tartu), but in a holistic perception. That is, it is given through the activity of a subject that connects mental, intellectual and even emotional data into a unity called a thing, object, object. Otherwise (i.e. in the logic of the question), no perceiving ” who ” can be not only confirmed in existence, but even conceived.�

    After all, the questioner did not just throw a scattering of letters in the field of the question to observe what kind of free (in content and character) reaction will occur, but turned to “someone” who can meaningfully perceive these letters as words, and words as a question, and the question as not idle. Thus, this “someone” (for example, I) was accepted as existing. Even with a temperature of only 36.6 😊

  2. I will not go into the question of the validity of using the term “temperature” in its usual sense for temperatures “in the trillions of degrees and more”, this does not change the essence of my answer to your question. And it is this: we do not perceive much directly. For example, the object that we see is actually the photons scattered by it, and not the object itself. The source of sound that we hear is mechanical vibrations of the medium, and not itself, etc. We feel heat from the sun, but in fact it is the IR waves emitted by it (also repeatedly re-emitted), and not the sun itself. Thus, all these amazing imaginative temperatures can be felt by ourselves, only indirectly. Just as indirectly as we feel most of what we feel.

Leave a Reply