If There Is No External World, Why Does Physics Explain Vision So Precisely?

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura I understand your point that reality is direct experience and that there is no external world behind appearances. But I have a question:

Physics explains vision through light reflecting off objects, entering our eyes, stimulating the retina, and being processed by the brain.

We can even predict and manipulate perception through glasses, eye surgery, retinal damage, or changes in lighting.

If there is no external physical world behind our experience, why do these mechanisms work so consistently and predictably?

I understand that you might say the eyes, light, brain, and scientific explanations are themselves appearances within consciousness.But doesn't that just move the question one step further?

Why does consciousness follow such precise physical laws, as if there were an independent external world?And what exactly causes vision to change when the physical eye is damaged, if the eye itself is only an appearance within consciousness?

//chatgpt helped to formulate my thoughts 

Edited 18 minutes ago by OBEler

[Jirh]

The word 'appearance' is broad, and it includes more than just the visual field. Physical laws are appearances as well in that framework.

Basically, anything you experience can be considered an appearance or something you're interfacing with instead of directly interacting with the real thing underneath. This means there's no direct connection between you and the world, and that there's at least some layer(s) of interpretation between those two. So you aren't really accessing the world through your visual field with the eyes. The eyes are just interfacing with the world in a certain way that includes physicality and such. This model bypasses the question of correcting vision deficiencies with glasses.

There's also the emitter-transmitter model, which means the world sends signals and brains receive and process them and eyes and other organs interpret those signals and send the interpretation back to the brain for creating experience. If the interpreter is damaged, it can be fixed. Correcting vision deficiencies with glasses doesn't contradict this model.

Not that I necessarily agree with any of the above, but just my 2 cents.

Also, physics doesn't really explain anything. It only provides utility. This one, I own. If it explained anything, you wouldn't be asking.

Edited just now by Jirh