That's the insanity of trying to prove it, on top of it being unprovable of course.

It's metaphysical solipsism not the "how can we know" one, because we really can't. WE can't even know if we exist, like I said.

Berkley can argue against and unobserved and unimagined tree all he wants it doesn't make it any less real. It's also why idealism died out I guess and why we follow science. The "if I don't see it it didn't happen or isn't real" is one of the easiest things to disprove.

Everything else you said is irrelevant to the topic.

You are performing a reducio ad absurdum, taking solipsism to it's extreme conclusion to refute it. Indirect realism can be reduced to the absurd by taking it to solipsism. However, solipsism is like indirect reality, it is not completely of the mind, but it is a function of the body.

Pure solipsism is not a challenging philosophical exercise. You don't have to have any JTB about any of the things that you mention, they are merely objects of your creation that mean whatever you want them to. Everything that is, is possibly interpretable by an 'idea of reference' that relates to you. About you or against you. You immediately understand everything as if it orbits around you like a planet around the sun. Better yet, geocentric is more solipsistic than heliocentric.

Obviously some manifestations of solipsism can be deemed false/untrue/dysfunctional, but ultimately it has a power whether you call it will-to-power or something else, that is opposed to group-think, consensus, democracy, fascism, normativity, herd mentality, objectivity, collectivism, state-philosophy, psychiatry, etc. — introbert

Still wrong, again.

This is a key topic in the prevailing ethos of anti-schizophrenia. The first issue is that, of course, solipsism is a phenomenon of indirect realism. Indirect realism is not disproven by the solipsistic extreme that the mind originates all reality, neither is Idealism disproven by the existence of the physical realm. Solipsism is a verifiable fact of 'psychology'. Practical knowledge has been developed through the objectification of solipsism, such as 'theory of mind', therefore, through it's existence what is considered normal psychology has not been taken for granted, and some understanding has been developed of epistemology etc. Arguing solipsism is not true, is like arguing idealism is not true, but the difference is that idealism has developed in the modern by the rejection of manifest irrationalities that occur in nature. Solipsism is true because it resides in all of us, it is part of our bodily power, it can help us and it can hurt us. That it is most noticeable, made an object, through its problematic manifestation, and not really noticed when it is functional, arguing against it is an absurd and ironic rational idealism. Ironic, because one is using solipsism in making solipsism purely an idea your mind can deny, without acknowledging that there is a material basis for it outside your mind that is undeniable. This is like a transcendental idealism, but by trying to transcend solipsism, one confines idealism to rational (normative, deindividuating) thought. Ultimately a disempowering belief. This disempowerment, rejection of solipsist negation of other minds, turns one into a mindless extrovert. A mindless extrovert is a fascist, a mindless introvert (solipsist) is a homeless schizo. The Deleuzian concept can be interpreted that the schizo is an oppressed introvert (lone thinker) in a socius of extroversion (collective doers), is about a broader philosophical project that makes the anti-solipsist into a useful marionette, and the solipsist into a tangled mess of strings that only the most powerful can unravel. — introbert

Not true at all. It's not true just because it resides in all of us. And it definitely isn't a verifiable act of psychology (which suggests the opposite).

Not to mention not of your logic follows or makes any sense.

I don't think anything is indubitable at least from what I've heard other people say. I could doubt this is in english as I might have been mislead a lot of the time.

I don't think we have a learned bias towards needing proof, quite the opposite actually. In fact we fail to notice how much we take for GRANTED in our lives. Like that we exist, we just take it as a given never questioning it, yet when asked to prove it you can't without something self referential or just flat assertions.

Because as far as I see you can't. There is no experiment you can construct that would prove it true because you can't test it. Even argument wise there is no way to prove it, it just assumes you are all there is. You couldn't prove it without invalidating it to begin with.

Which is why I'm heavily doubting not just my memory about what I read those years ago but if they actually did. But all I have is a very strong emotion that he certainly did but no memory of what was said, which means nothing.

But nothing is certain though...so would that mean nothing exists. I mean at the ground level of any sort of system you build you make assumptions or axioms, without that you can't get anywhere.

It's why you can never prove solipsism, though I'm slowing getting over it and seeing how it's not really logical (consistent sure but not something to be taken seriously or at all since it says nothing and advances nothing).

But as I quoted above, those who try to prove it just end up making a whole bunch of assumptions they can't prove, like events only happen if you're looking at it which is nonsense, otherwise car crashes wouldnt happen.

I think you’re missing the point of what’s going on here.

Though I don’t really regard solipsism as highly as in the years past because a lot of the explanations for people who “prove it” are straight nonsense like this:

Solipsism is not a choice, human beings or a human being is even in strict scientific terms a subjective entity, a subject, everything that happens to me is in my own subjective bubble. But, this is not where i see where the problem is at. The problem comes when, if you even come to the realization that solipsism is true, and that no event can exist without you consciously being subjectively aware of it, why would a solipsist or any person, put himself inside a simulated reality that basically restricts him in his wishes, fantasies, and absolute freedom. If you are infact first and foremost, outside of the simulated reality and have absolute freedom to do with yourself whatever you want, restricting yourself to a simulation even if it is self imposed, inside one’s own mind is really hard to understand. Because you would basically go into a span of about 80 years, experiencing even suffering, physical or psychological, being restricted in what you can do, example, no absolute control or freedom over matter, or the mind-matter relationship, i agree that it is hard to understand subjectivity and its logic that way. But, still, that does not negate solipsism. Because you also get to experience amazing beautiful things and extend your freedom further to the point of physical liberation or end which results in death, but you only end your own mind simulation. The whole process of solipsism is that every minute, date, month, year and second is a carefully planned event that must ultimately lead to absolute freedom, that is the end point of solipsism, to be able to do whatever you want, and without your subjectivity in that state ever ending.

but it just seems like you’re assuming you’re the origin which you don’t.

I think that quora post I read years ago is mistake or I was. I mean I you can’t prove solipsism, how can you prove you’re the only mind in existence if you can’t even measure minds, let alone know of somewhere in the universe there is another. Or how do you know you’re not just someone’s dream or simulation. It seems like any attempt to prove it would involve so many assumptions that you can’t back it.

Then there is also that wrinkle about posting it on a public forum for people to read.

And it also assumes that you exist and are thinking and a bunch of other things it can’t prove.

I thought that proof was sketchy. It assumes way too much and the steps don’t even lead to each other.

So I’m wondering what kind of “proof” it’s supposed to be

How does he know other people exist? — Agent Smith

How you know they don't?

Come one man, we're both to old for that nonsense. Of course they exist.

No just that other people exist, I talked with him.

I think it's more like you don't know what you're talking about.

Actually he says he doesn't believe other people don't exist.

Actually after talking with the guy who made that quote I've found he has no idea what he's talking about. He keeps referring to the Many Worlds interpretation which is the least supported view.

Like...dude seems out there:

https://www.quora.com/Does-Physics-say-there-such-a-thing-as-an-Objective-reality/answer/David-Pearce-18?ch=10&oid=127587573&share=e3f024b6&srid=hHqf38&target_type=answer

Who said anything about less than? I keep bringing up energy because it exists at the same level you are trying to dismiss as ‘less than’. You can try to ‘dismiss’ a nightmare, but it still exists as part of your experiences. What you’d be doing is trying to exclude, isolate or ignore the experience by devaluing the information it offers. — Possibility

IT offers no information, it's not real. It has no consequences in reality, it doesn't hurt you, its not energy. It's just a phantom. It does not EXIST.

When we read about a character, we treat them as MORE than the description we have. When we interact with a fictional character, we flesh out the limited information we have AS IF they were a living, thinking, feeling human being. — Possibility

Not always, we remember they aren't real after all.

The way I see it, ‘not real’ doesn’t mean ‘less than’. Real is a quality of existence, but not necessarily a value judgement. Treating the information we have about other people as ‘not necessarily real as such’, in this world of online forums, social media and AI, is arguably more accurate than being dismissive of any interaction unconfirmed as ‘real’. You can’t be certain that anything you read or observe here about me is ‘real’. I am a ‘useful fiction’ to you, whether you recognise that or not, as you are to me. For me, that means I treat you as MORE than the information I have about you, not less. — Possibility

Well you aren't a useful fiction because you are real as am I. I really think you're trying to make what he said out to be better than it actually is. He's pretty much implying others aren't real if you're regarding their existence as a useful fiction. And when you regard something as not real then you open the gate to essentially permitting everything against it, which makes what's on his home page all the more odd.

Not real does mean less than. I mean you don't see legislation or rights for NPCs for fictional characters right?

I’m not arguing against the implication that ‘other people’ aren’t ‘real’ as such, because I don’t think it’s as important as you might think. I’m arguing that what IS ‘real’ with regard to the notion of ‘other people’ is merely evidence or measurements of their existence in potentiality: ‘other people’ exist and are useful (different to convenient) in this non-real, non-verifiable, conceptual or fictional structure in terms of how we interact with the world.

Real does not necessarily determine existence. This is outdated thinking. Energy and other people are far more complex than mere measurement/observation would suggest. Recognising this enables us to manage our uncertainty and prediction error. — Possibility

It's sort of important that they are real since it affects how we treat and regard them. A lot of bad has been done by those who have a habit of making others appear to be less than.

Real does determine existence and I don't know where you got this notion that it is outdated. Never heard anyone suggest that. I'm not even sure how you're dragging energy into this. What is real is what can be determined to exist, that's how we know dreams are not real and can safely dismiss a nightmare (well usually).

Nor am I saying that you presume solipsism, but that it is a consequence of the presumed primacy of experience. — Banno

I would argue otherwise. Solipsism is a massive leap of faith more than realism and violates Occam's Razor.

When you take first-person phenomena - observation - as your starting point, including others becomes problematic, as it seems you have found.

But instead, if one starts with the world as a collaborative construction from its contents, that there are other folk is not problematic.

So i'm suggesting that a reliance on phenomenology leads to solipsism. — Banno

Again you misunderstand just like with the Wigner's friend experiment.

I'm not saying I start from solipsism because I don't believe in it. Solipsism is pure belief, not fact. Starting from first-person phenomenon doesn't make including others problematic. Quite the opposite in fact as it's a more expedient explanation than why everything is the way it is and why others like you are around, etc etc. In short NO, starting from a first person perspective including others doesn't become problematic, and no I didn't find that. Where did I ever say that?

But like I said that's not my starting point, I'm just about about what the guy I linked to's logic leads to.

Still supports my original point of view as what he is arguing for is still essentially solipsism.

Even arguing that your phenomena are noumena is just wrong. All you have is sense experience with no way to truly verify it thus making the external world (or the lack of one) belief only. It's the one thing I despise about it.

But again it's still just more misunderstandings about quantum physics and in the end trying to cop out of solipsism which his words support with an argument that is just wrong.

So no, his words still back that he is suggesting others aren't real. If you read through it all you'll see he doesn't really say otherwise, just mentions "under this view X would be wrong" but that doesn't make the view true nor does that invalidate his previous points or post.

You say I lack subtlety but I think at this point you're just digging and running into the same issues of trying to get him to say other that what he is clearly implying. Sometimes things just are what they appear.

I don't start at solipsism, I don't believe it. I'm just saying what words like that lead to.

A simulation isn't reality so if everything is a simulation then it therefor would not be real and by extension not matter.

It's why I dont get why folks would refer to others as a useful ficiton.

I don't lack subtlety but there is nothing in his quote to imply what you're suggesting. How can referring to other people as a useful fiction for purposes of navigation mean anything other than implying that they aren't real. When you call something a fiction you either imply it's not real or are pretending as such for some other purpose. But in either instance it's acknowledging that it isn't real hence calling it fiction.

By no definition of the word fiction is your interpretation supported. It's tacking on too many things that aren't supported by it.

Yes. We are all in this story together. — T Clark

Not according to him.

Except he is imputing reality or existence to such things by suggesting them to be a useful fiction, your interpretation doesn't follow from his words. The only conclusion he is getting at is others aren't real hence why regarding their existence is a useful fiction. You're reading what isn't there into his words.

Then there is stuff on quantum monism that he clearly doesn't understand (in fact I don't think he even understands it at all) since quantum monism is a form of quantum realism not either or. Though thats all I understood from the bottom link.

https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/10/11/the-problem-of-wave-function-ontology/#:~:text=There%20are%20two%20types%20of,level%20is%20a%20field%20in

It should also be noted that the many worlds view of QM he seems to be favoring is a minority view.

You're making it more complex than it needs to be. To refer to something as fiction is by definition to say it's not real. So when he's saying that the notion of other people is a useful fiction is implying that they aren't real. Read what he said.

https://qr.ae/pvepjo

Yes because saying other people being a convenient fiction is saying they don't exist which is what the guy in the thing was saying when I copied the link,

To say that other people is a useful fiction is not to say others or the self (since we are all in that fictive sense other people) are not real, and is no different than saying the self or any identity is a useful fiction; so what's the problem? — Janus

It is EXACTLY saying that others are not real by suggesting they are a fiction in the first place.

No not at all. It's just regarding other people as not real rubs me the wrong way.

No the link shows he did mean it

What I don't get is how someone can refer to other people as a useful fiction?

https://qr.ae/pvepjo

From the scientists who do this "real and not real" shows a misunderstanding of QM. It doesn't say nothing is real.

There is no way to dumb it down any more.

A quick google search literally shows you wrong.

Same page as the first guy though I think his was taken down.

So quantum tunnelling ain't quantum physics. You learn something new everyday. :roll: — apokrisis

Biological processes take place at a level above that which quantum physics operates hence quantum physics has nothing to offer in the realm of biology. Even googling biophysics shows it doesn't deal with quantum physics.

Also that paper you cited doesn't mention tunneling. It just thinks there is evidence for it but doesn't prove it.

Like I said, not sure what you're smoking.

... and yet still agreeing that if they swapped places then they would also swap observations. The one would see the spoon, the other the fork.

Ok, you missed the point. Not my problem. — Banno

Again, no. that's not what's being said here. You're just not getting it. We are TALKING ABOUT a SPOON being seen by one person while ANOTHER PERSON is looking at the same object but seeing a FORK and BOTH being RIGHT. That's the analogy. You're making this harder than it has to be.

More what if nonsense.

Quantum physics says something more, that the real-unreal dichotomy is old, outdated, and useless. — Agent Smith

Not really.

I think you might agree with this take I found:

No, it hasn’t proven that, and even when it’s talked about you have to twist your use of the word “reality.” What is reality? I think it’s the sum total of all of our collective conscious experiences. No more and no less. How that reality is “implemented” is really of little consequence.

In the movie The Matrix Neo points out a Asian restaurant inside the Matrix that he’d previously patronized, noted that they had great noodles, and said “I have all these memories. They never happened.” I completely disagree. He had those experiences, and furthermore he shared them with other living thinking human beings (who were also in the Matrix, but that’s not the point). He didn’t dream them in isolation from other humans. So they happened. If a man and woman fell in love in the Matrix, would they be less in love because of meeting inside a simulation? I don’t think so at all.

Physicists say the universe is comprised of quantum fields, among which quanta of energy move back and forth. But they don’t say, or even try to say, what a quantum field is. They just presume such fields exist and describe their interactions. They’ve built a model that we can use to make predictions, which in many cases can be extremely accurate. But there is absolutely no way to know what that model actually is or how it works.

A big debate along these lines today (which I don’t think is even a scientific debate, because science can’t actually answer the question) is whether reality is “materialist” (i.e., made of physical matter and energy from which our minds arise via the laws of physics) or “idealist” (our minds are fundamental and our interactions create our perception of physical things). Does it even matter? The point is that you and I are self-aware and we consciously experience events and interactions with one another (well, not you and me specifically, but you know what I mean).

Usually when someone says there is no objective reality they are professing a position of idealism, the second of the two positions I outlined above. But as I said, I think it’s an empty claim. Reality is what we experience.

Stay safe and well!

Kip

Though I don't get this one:

[Subjective reality is a local perspective adapting to context. This is complementarity in QM. Each causal relation resulting in a contextual interaction is objective. This is a condition to be a valid complement in QM. The generalization of all local positions and contexts is also objective. The shift from local subjective to general objective is split by uncertainty principle.

When you understand Copenhagen Interpretation correctly, questions like this do not occur. They become the play things of those who haven't graduated from philosophy to empirical reality./quote]

Yeah, it is. One fork. Left, right.

You haven't made a case for a difference, which leaves the suspicion that you only wish to hide your views behind QM verbosity. — Banno

Again, no. This isn't difference. It's the same object. I explained what I meant with my example. In this case it would be like two people observing and one saying they see a fork and another a spoon. It's not just a simple position change but something entirely different.

Get it through your head.