Surfaces Updated

I keep thinking about surfaces. I'm gathering some serious epistemic issues with thinking that objects exist at all. Surface theory seems really similiar to idealism then. But, to distinguish from idealism, surfaces are still physical things.

How do we come to know about objects? We see and feel them. In other words, we perceive objects. But, the only thing we can perceive is the surface. If parsimony is right, then maybe we should just believe in surfaces. Or perhaps even one ever changing surface.

I know this may seem really similiar to skepticism and solipcism, but there are some distinct differences. For example, surface theory seems to show that epistemic reliabilism is not so not hot. That's because perception is an unreliable guide to objects, because it can only ever tell us about their surfaces.

Of course, you can always say, what about gravity? What about mass? What about physics? One possible answer is: So what, physics could just be wrong. A slightly more substantive answer, and one needs a lot of work, is to point out that gravity is a pretty weird sort of happening. Maybe it's simpler to just say that things happen because of the way they are. Closed surfaces, those things that appear to be objects, could interact in a way like gravity would cause objects to exist.

There's one real problem. Well, there's a whole bunch, but I can think of right now. I don't know how to say that surfaces are physical entities if they have no depth. I don't know if there can be 2 dimensional physical "objects". Oh well, just more to ponder then I guess.

I hope one day when I have time I can develop surface theory as a counter example to reliablism and the prevelance of parsimony in philosophical literature.