>>23599
>How about this kind of answer, reality is totality of all subjects, processes and objects? Which means, when you're asking about reality you implying you're out of it, because reality can't ask about reality itself, as it doesn't "know" anything at all. If it knew something about reality, it would mean there was something else besides reality, but that's a contradiction, because reality embraces everything without exception. Actually, I'm committing the same crime along these lines, as you can see.

Hmm, yes, you are right here.

But if this always ends with philosophical nonsense, is there a way to discuss it properly? I don't know.

>So, why should we prefer one reference point over another?
>If we chose the model where the Sun was stationary and the planets were moving around it, that would give us a more simple theory to explain the observations.
>You may be asking, "but why should we prefer more simple and elegant model over another one?" The only (and a very unsatisfying) argument I can see here is it is more practical.

Having Earth as reference point is much more practical for many things, from navigation to human interactions. Stationary Sun model is less practical I guess, although it has some advantages over Earth model. But people still love it, mostly for historical reasons, and because when that model was created, Sun was considered stationary (and still stays like this in mind of masses).