Meh would prefer untrusted digital world. Would act as a forcing function for us to live in the real world, where being there is the only reliable source.
Here in the UK, the police have a long tradition of using pocket notebooks to record their observations and activities. It is a professional duty to make a contemporaneous note of anything significant that happens during a shift - attending a crime scene, observing a suspect, taking a statement from a witness. Each notebook has a unique serial number, which is recorded by the officer's supervisor when it is issued to them. Each page of the notebook is numbered sequentially. Each entry in that notebook must be closed with a line, the time and date and the officer's signature.
When a police officer gives evidence in court, the defence will ask to see their pocket notebook as a matter of course. If the evidence they give isn't corroborated by their pocket notebook, a jury or magistrate is entitled to draw their own conclusions about the veracity of the testimony. If an entry is obliterated or a page has been torn out, if the entries are out-of-sequence or don't match with the dispatch logs from the day in question, that's obviously a cause for significant scepticism and may constitute an act of professional misconduct.
A notebook with numbered pages isn't a particularly clever technical innovation, but the practice surrounding it creates a great deal of value. It doesn't infallibly prove that an officer is telling the truth, but it creates a lot of hurdles and pitfalls for a dishonest officer. Likewise, in-camera signing of images doesn't prove that an image is an accurate reflection of reality, but it does make life more difficult for dishonest photojournalists or insurance assessors or forensic investigators. It gives few firm answers, but it does allow us to ask useful questions. If you're presenting an image as evidence, is it signed? Do the timestamp and geotag fit with your testimony regarding the circumstances in which the image was taken? If not, why?
We have to verify via prior sensory experience (past experience) if the person speaking in the present is credible. How do we do that with limited sensory experience of their character? Personal ignorances and biases due to lack of experience?
We have to understand how to leverage the first principles of math to extend them, and teach those to others to propagate the knowledge.
Not really sure it’s possible to remove sensory experience from … well any understanding of the world.
Not sure what you wrote makes any sense.
To have no ability to determine whether a video, or image (or any media) is from a reliable source forever more, seems like a pretty bad place to be in - if this is what you're suggesting?