>>7656796
Solipsism is not possible to prove, and functionless even if you embrace it.

That's not to say thinking it through isn't very important, and doesn't expand your ability to consider all other avenues of thought, but nonetheless. Our observations of physics tend to be consistent between individuals.

People get real pissed, and very snotty when it comes to solipsism. It's usually because they're scared and can neither say, nor do shit about. It's there. It's gonna always be there. It can't be truly reconciled. And they don't want to deal.

File: wearec.jpg (91 KB, 480x453) Image search: [Google]

91 KB, 480x453

>>7656800
Is many-worlds or parallel universes or multiverse theory any more possible to prove?

>>7656796
>she
Almost certainly not.

>>7656810
I don't know if a means exists to do so. The affordances of the universe itself are limited, but we can't say we ever know their real extent.

You won't tend to hear me say anything good about the idea of a universe that contains any component probabilistic by nature though.

>observer
So, each thing capable of interacting with other things.

What implications would this have if embraced, apart from the general public massively fucking misunderstanding it?

>>7656796
>we
*I

>>7656796
>>7656800
>Solipsism
it is a delirium of the mind, just like the concept of proof. anything that the mind produces cannot be disproved


What is the solipsism ?
One individual is a solipsist when he thinks that he is more alive than the others, who could themselves be more alive than the animals, which could themselves be more alive than the plants, which could themselves be more alive than the stones.

A solipsist is already a realist: he thinks that there is him and some stuff that are not him, precisely since he cannot feel the other stuff like he feels whatever he believes is his self.
he can say that he has no recollection of him creating the dead stuff, but then he acknowledges that, using his mind, his deliriums, there is him-now plus some him-past who still influences the him-now in heavy ways through the dead stuff, whereas the him-now is clearly powerless to change the dead stuff which was created by the him-past.
For, Worse for him, he cannot control the dead stuff. of course, he notices too that he cannot control himself. His body changes and he cannot control his mind either. he has no idea why he thinks this way or another, why he has these tastes, why he said these words instead of others.... everything seems to change and he does not like him, for some guy who is supposed to be the most alive.

>>7656884

So he controls nor the dead stuff, nor really himself, even though he thinks that there is a self. But then it is a self which is hardly controllable...
So the last step for him is to reject the dichotomy object-subject. the dead stuff is not less there/dead than him. the dead stuff is now plated on what he called, in his realist era, the senses. Now, instead of saying that some dead cold air felt on his living arms activates his nerves, he says that there is a the perception through a material contact ''of the air'', that it is cold (pleasing or not) (the affect), the knowledge of the perception, he notices the mind bringing him the usual deliriums about essence, reality, about future, past, present, warmer places to be and so on, but then he understand that his whole being is nothing but a spectre of existences, from what he called the dead stuff, to the deepest conciouness, which is not conciouness of something, but just conciouness. (it is better to call this one existence).


this kills the solipsistic man. What he acknowledges is that there exists, but nothing can be said (through the imagination/language) and nothing can be perceived more, nor less, than the existence. What remains once whatever self was imagined by the mind was abandonned by some degree of conciousness, is a pure existence/deepest consciousness.

Only the perception and the reason, used not as an absolute, to be able to describe, not speculate on speculated causes, can kill solipsism. thus far, not a single scientist can provide an experiment that refute solipsism.

>>7656884
>One individual is a solipsist when he thinks that he is more alive than the others[...]
This has nothing to do with solipsism. There isn't a hierarchy of what is "most alive" and "most accurately experiencing or existing".

Solipsism is just a snowball effect wherein doubts and unprovable assumptions are called into question. That memory you have... is it actually real? Did it happen? How do you know? Do people and things still exist when they leave your frame of reference? What's to say you were built 10 minutes ago and given false memories, and what's to say your environment isn't all engineered to reinforce it? Etc. You can't evaluate these things. No matter what proof you come up with, you can invalidate that proof within the framework you've created.

That's what solipsism is. The idea that only your mind, whatever your mind is at that point because it need not be the thing in your skull, is the only thing that's likely to truly exist. As something must exist to generate your experience. Whether that thing is you, or if you're being created by someone else, a mind must exist.

The rest of what you described has to do with the chain. A possibly infinite chain of "why" that you might never resolve on the most of levels. No base unit can be found, so it is accepted only by faith that on a certain level, things are true.

Though I read what you said and it's interesting, a lot of it isn't describing solipsism itself.

>>7656796
>I believe
belief is irrelevant to the conclusions of Physics