It is logically impossible to know the past

I think it is how we create our 'truth' by analyis of our present. Imagine not having any way of knowing our past or even ten minutes before, with a perminant now, would that effect our perception?

And what of time, that strange forth dimention- it has peculiar properties, it must form in a 'line' (events in a...) otherwise it would seace to exist surly?

So reality is actually when two people+ agree on a principle of their external world?

And free will governs the rate of time or its direction?

The illusion that we call the external World...

Do you have argument or proof that the external world is an illusion?

I had already provided a proof:

Big Spanish Castle

The proof is abundant. When different people observe the same object or event but describe it in significantly different terms, the logical conclusion has to be that their perception differs.

A perception different to what you would call the reality is what I call an illusion.

You might otherwise say that they see different realites, that they live in different Worlds, but the gist is the same.

Now can you please explain to me in any other way why this is so difficult for you to appreciate while it is obvious to me?

The point is that different perceptions don't matter. This was all already addressed with the Dostoevsky protagonist example. What we think or believe about gravity, Coriolis or 2+2=4 hardly matters to the fact of the matter. That perceptions differ or that those perceptions differing from reality are illusions only states the obvious. My point is that what is perceived as reality to you is not on that account reality in fact.

Now can you please explain to me in any other way why this is so difficult for you to appreciate while it is obvious to me?

There is nothing there for me to appreciate because I had never supposed that what is perceived as a reality to me is on that account a reality in fact.

You are arguing against your own straw man, not mine.

In the context of more than one person a fact is a fact on the account, and only on the account of agreeing to the fact.

This is beneath contempt. This is not the point, and you know it. To say so is to completely ignore the previopus entirety of the thread. The point is that there is an objective reality for which human attendance and perception and concensus do not matter. This is the obvious point of the Dostoevsky protagonist example, the point that continues to elude you, and I see now that it is wholly deliberate on your part. Why? Because it is counter to your belief system? Either you have counter-argument to the Dostoevsky protagonist example or you don't. If you do, I'd certainly like to hear it. If you don't, then I will assume that you have no counter-argument and that it is again your mere insistence to the contrary that you would have us take in rebuttal.

You just don't get it, do you?

I had already pointed out that your protagonist story is an agument by induction, not a proof.

The reason then for such a poetic style of approach is of course that you have no actual proof to offer because of the tautology, it being impossible to prove that a Universe exists but without the proof, i.e. the consciousness of the human, the most essential requirement for anything to be proved.

The protagonist story is in any case a classic case of the fallacy of affirming the consequent It arrives at the conclusion of a single reality only to the extent that the interpretation of it relies upon the single reality as the premise.

Try it again with more than one reality allowed for.

What happens then is that the true believer of one version proceeds to his own salvation; his reality proceeds in one direction, one might say that the train is in a different place because of the different mathematical system, while the observer with the alternative belief system sees him squashed by the train; his reality proceeds to befit the belief. It really is as simple as that.

The need is perhaps to stretch the imagination more, or to brush up on the rules of logic to appreciate the proposition.

This in no sense, by the way, a belief of mine. I am a doubter, not a believer. Because of my conditioning I am more or less incapable of believing anything.

The proposition was arrived at as my best attempt to make sense logically of the evidence before me, evidence from experience, not fiction.

What the majority agrees with has nothing to do with what is reality; but I believe perplexity's point (though I can't really tell with all the coldness in between you two) is that not only can it be true and generally is, but when a belief has been accepted as 'culture' merely because more humans cheer for it than otherwise (because imagination is circumscribed further in some than in others), the world goes unaffected by one promulgating the truth because less people will believe it and 'the majority wins because the minority won't be able to (affect the world)'.
So, what is the argument again? Whether we should believe the history books or not?

In response to the original posted page:

Perplexity caused No Angst to leave.
No Angst left.
No Angst lost interest and left.
Perplexity and No Angst argued, so No Angst left.

All statements are true, but if I were to state history, then I would state that "On the first page, No Angst left," because he may still return after the first page, and we can only assume; even by his admittance that he left due to his lack of interest in following a dead argument, that he left for any of the above mentions.
For all we know, the fact is that No Angst left because he has ran out of minutes on the computer which was set to self destruct or something silly...and was only using Perplexity as an easy scapegoat for the situation.

My point is, history is what people choose to believe, regardless of the actualities of any event.
Enough research can prove or disprove any theory of any historical event.

There are people who have denied the holocaust, as there are people who say it really happened.
What they believe is history, is what they believe is fact, therefore anything to contradite either side is passed as false information.
Someone who has never heard of the event, would likely not know which side is the truth, and if told to write a paper on their knowledge of the event as it had a role in history; would be told they were wrong from one side or the other.
If they write that the event never took place, then they'd be wrong.
But I wasn't there, so I don't know because all I have to refer to is references from books written by people I have never met.