For sure these people are quacks, but if you're curious to take the next turn down the rabbit hole, let me seed you.
Even the concept of senses and reality are concepts in your mind and consequences of the model you have accepted as reality. So the problem recurses on itself, too. Can you directly experience your mind? Is the feeling of your mind delivered to you through a sense you haven't realized is a sense yet? Can you trust that sense? Total radical skepticism lies below that. But it's only logical. You can't escape that tarpit at the bottom. Or maybe it's the screen isn't there for anything to be projected onto?
So we have to rebuild from what we can sense, sure. What is repeatable. We must develop an axiom that what is repeatable is real. That what we can understand, the system, the model, the prediction, is real. We believe the planets and stars are real because we can draw maps and pass them between us and furthermore make predictions about where the stars and planets will go based on our mathematical models. But even our models tell us that the world is too huge of a system to compute even the slightest more than the tiniest fraction of a smidgen of it all. We don't even have computers big enough to fold proteins. Yet they do. And what we don't have models for--we can't predict. Is it unreal, then? Where did our axiom go? What is real and isn't? I'm not so sure it's logic that decides that, after all. Because you gotta have faith that them there proteins are getting folded right, because you can't. fucking. check it!
Even the concept of senses and reality are concepts in your mind and consequences of the model you have accepted as reality. So the problem recurses on itself, too. Can you directly experience your mind? Is the feeling of your mind delivered to you through a sense you haven't realized is a sense yet? Can you trust that sense? Total radical skepticism lies below that. But it's only logical. You can't escape that tarpit at the bottom. Or maybe it's the screen isn't there for anything to be projected onto?
So we have to rebuild from what we can sense, sure. What is repeatable. We must develop an axiom that what is repeatable is real. That what we can understand, the system, the model, the prediction, is real. We believe the planets and stars are real because we can draw maps and pass them between us and furthermore make predictions about where the stars and planets will go based on our mathematical models. But even our models tell us that the world is too huge of a system to compute even the slightest more than the tiniest fraction of a smidgen of it all. We don't even have computers big enough to fold proteins. Yet they do. And what we don't have models for--we can't predict. Is it unreal, then? Where did our axiom go? What is real and isn't? I'm not so sure it's logic that decides that, after all. Because you gotta have faith that them there proteins are getting folded right, because you can't. fucking. check it!