Proof that I am the only observer in the world
Let’s assume there are multiple observers (or perspectives or “cameras”) viewing the world. Every person has one. However, I know that I am one of these observers.
Therefore, there needs to be a flag or property in the world which contains the information needed to tell which perspective my life becomes. In particular, who is me. However, from another person’s point of view, this flag points to them, not me. This is impossible, since this is a universal flag. Hence, I am the only perspective there is.
If we assume, each person has their own world, with their own flags that points to them, then there needs to be another flag outside of this, which tells which world I will be in for the life I’m living now. For another observer, this would be pointing at their world. It is not possible for the flag to take on multiple values.
If the flag can take on multiple values at the same time, there would still need to be another flag, which tells which value I should select from the first flag in order to live the life I live now. So in the end, there will always be one flag in the world that will point to me, and to nobody else. This proves I am the only observer in the world and the world is unique to me.
Where is the flaw?
Therefore, there needs to be a flag or property in the world which contains the information needed to tell which perspective my life becomes. In particular, who is me. However, from another person’s point of view, this flag points to them, not me. This is impossible, since this is a universal flag. Hence, I am the only perspective there is.
If we assume, each person has their own world, with their own flags that points to them, then there needs to be another flag outside of this, which tells which world I will be in for the life I’m living now. For another observer, this would be pointing at their world. It is not possible for the flag to take on multiple values.
If the flag can take on multiple values at the same time, there would still need to be another flag, which tells which value I should select from the first flag in order to live the life I live now. So in the end, there will always be one flag in the world that will point to me, and to nobody else. This proves I am the only observer in the world and the world is unique to me.
Where is the flaw?
Comments (84)
I don't see how any of this follows. If you are observer nr. 587, there might be a flag nr. 587 attached to the things that you experience. Another person might experience the things with flag nr. 935 etc.
Quoting bizso09
You're assuming that there is some kind of "you" that is then assigned a perspective by being assigned a flag number. This doesn't make much sense since the "you" would have zero content associated with it. So instead of you being "assigned" a flag, you are what results from a bunch of "things" having the same flag.
Only thing I see wrong...
...is the reasoning.
You may be making some conceptual mistakes, but then again there might be something buried deep in what you are saying. If I try to generate something resembling a deductively valid argument from what you are saying, the first draft I get is:
1. Any experience can be truly described as "mine" by whoever is having it.
2. Where something can be described truly by the use of a word, that thing instantiates a property singled out by that word.
3. Therefore all experiences instantiate the property of being mine.
4. Mineness is one and the same property wherever it is instantiated.
5. Instantiations of one property can present no distinct aspects from one another, otherwise they are not instantiations of the same property.
6. One aspect of mineness is that it relates an experience to a subject of experience.
7. So, if two instantiations of mineness could relate experiences to two different subjects of experience, then those instances of mineness would have different aspects.
8. So, if two instantiations of mineness related an experience to different subjects of experience, those instantiations of mineness would be instatiations of distinct properties.
9. So, since it would contradict 4, two instantiations of mineness cannot relate experiences to two different subjects of experience.
10. Therefore, all instances of mineness relate an experience to one and the same subject.
11. A subject of experience cannot exist without having experiences. Therefore there is only one subject of experience.
If this is what you are getting at then premise 2 requires a lot of supporting argument. After all, all places can be identified by the person at them as being "here", but that doesn't entail that hereness is a feature of places. Even if you got past that hurdle, there would still be premise 4 to establish. Why couldn't "mineness" be a determinable property with many different determinations, like, for example, colour.
Quoting jkg20
Why is "mine" a thing in the world? Because I can tell the difference between my perspective and yours. Right now, I'm Joe, I am not Jean or Micheal. "Mine" is the information which tells me who I am. It is the point of view.
For example, imagine you're watching a movie. The perspective would be the camera. The camera is not a thing in the movie, but in reality, the camera is part of the world, because there's nothing outside the world.
Quoting tim wood
If Jimmy has their view of the world, and Mike has their view of the world, then how do I tell if I am Jimmy or Mike? You might say I know who I am, but actually I don't unless the "mineness" is stored somewhere.
For example, in a video game, you pick a character to play. Your selection is stored. When you read a book, the narrator's point of view is stored in the way the story is written.
Quoting Echarmion
How do I know I'm observer nr 587, and not nr 935? Where does that information come from?
Quoting Echarmion
You are right that "you" has zero content, but actually "you" encodes the "angle of observation" or the "point of view". So it does have something.
But you are arguing for a position that there are not two such perspectives, aren't you?
It seems incoherent to support a premise of an argument that leads to the conclusion that there are not two perspectives, the very premise that there are two perspectives.
"Dear Mr Russell
Solipsism appears to me to be so self evidently true that I do not understand why everyone does not believe it"
Sorry, you are right. I'm saying we have two subjective experiences (not perspectives), so the single perspective tells me which one is going to be mine. In my original argument, perspective is the flag
The reason this exists, is because I can unequivocally tell the difference between my subjective experiences vs yours.
If you also had a perspective, then again we would have to have a "super-perspective" to tell which one will be mine. This would need to progress to an infinite regress.
These perspectives are things in the world, because by definition the world includes everything there is.
If in the infinite regress, we will have multiple perspectives, then I should be able to view the world from both you and I. This is not the case at the moment, so this is false.
If in the infinite regress there are no perspectives, then that means right now I would not be here. This is again false, because I am here.
Hence, the only solution is that all perspectives will converge to a single perspective, which is mine.
A crucial bit of the argument is that fact I am here. I cannot prove this to anybody else, but it's a reasonable assumption to make. This basically says that "first person perspective" exists.
Quoting Zophie
This can be falsified because you can derive the same argument from your point of view, and it will lead to a contradiction with mine.
There is no such thing as "you" to which the category of "knowing" could apply in this scenario. Either the universe has some property which creates your specific perspective, thereby creating you, or it doesn't. You aren't assigned a perspective, you are a perspective.
Quoting bizso09
I don't think that's logically necessary. There doesn't need to be some intermediary "you", like a homunculus in front of a screen that is then assigned a "channel". Perspectives might just be as naturally part of the "topography" of the universe as is everything else.
Not sure how this gets around the problem. Remember you are trying to prove the premise of your argument, or at least my version of your argument, that mineness is a genuine feature of things in the world. Your argument that it must be is now that without mineness you could not distinguish between a subjective experience which is yours and a subjective experience which is not yours. But if there is only one subject of experience, which is what you are saying your argument proves, then there is no such distinction to make, so you cannot rest an argument for the existence of mineness on that distiction.
This is a peculiar use of language. A camera might be placed to give a specific perspective on a scene, but that does not entail that the camera is a perspective. If you are trying to illuminate a special techical sense of "perspective" by way of the analogy of a film camera, then I think you are digging your own grave: you can have several cameras recording a single scene in a film from a number of different perspectives. This would seem to imply, contrary to what you want to prove, that the idea of there being multiple perspectives makes perfect sense.
yes there is. The universe can be completely identical in every way, except for the "you". Let's assume you know the following: A, B and C exist. In scenario 1, you are A, in scenario 2, you are B, in scenario 3, you do not exist. Between the three scenarios, there's absolutely no difference in the world, apart from the "you". The person you are now, could think, act, live and experience the world exactly the same way with or without "you" being there to observe it. Or look at your friend, they think, act, live and experience the world, but "you" do not observe any of that. Why is it that when you say "I" you mean person A and not person C. If you were to ask person A and C if they are them, they will both say yes. But only "you" know which one of them is indeed you, because the "you" is assigned to person A. The first person perspective goes with A, not C.
Quoting jkg20
There can be multiple subjective experiences, what I'm claiming is that there is a single "first person point of view". It is impossible to observe the world through a neutral point of view, like a scientist looking at a closed experiment from outside of that system. There is nothing outside of the world, therefore, the observer is always part of the world being observed. The angle of the first person observer has to be encoded somewhere. If you are the scientist looking at a box of mice, then you are one of the mice, but you gotta know which one.
Quoting jkg20
In the analogy, the perspective is from the viewer who watches the movie. Whichever camera is shown on screen, has the "first person point of view". Likewise, in the book analogy, the perspective comes from the narrator.
There is an element which is the same in all observers, that element being bare awareness. But as soon as that bare awareness is differentiated, which occurs by virtue of the fact that no two observers can occupy the same place at the same time, nor have the same past and therefore the same memories, then bare awareness assumes individuality. So what you're referring to as 'a flag' is not universal, as it is different for every observer. What is the same in all individuals can't even be a matter of comment, as it is indistinguishable.
Yeah, you're right. Damn, he's on to us.
It's not a refutation, it's an inference to the best explanation. Now, if you're opting for Ockham's Razor, I think Solipsism is better than multiple consciousnesses. However, if that's the case, then the idea that's there is only consciousness itself, that is my view, Idealistic Monism, would be more parsimonious.
I dunno. Debate which sounds best.
There is no flaw; I am entirely convinced. ;)
Only if the "you" isn't part of the universe. But then the perspective of "you" might not be part of the universe either, and your argument doesn't work.
If we assume that there is an "objective universe" that exists irrespective of any perspective, then "you" must also be in some way part of that. "You" must come from somewhere, and so at some point "you" must make a difference. You wouldn't say, for example, that a universe with cats is completely identical in every way to one without cats.
Quoting bizso09
But the "you" is a difference. The world where I am A is different from the world where I am B.
Quoting bizso09
That sounds like nonsense. Without me, there wouldn't be a person, there would be no experience, and while there would still be a world in some sense, it would not be the world I experience. There isn't a way in which someone else could have my perspective. My perspective is an integral part of me. It's fundamentally who I am.
Quoting bizso09
They experience [I]their[/I] world, not [I]the[/I] world. There is a difference between the subjective world a person experiences and the objective world that logically precedes any subjective experience.
Quoting bizso09
Because that's what the word means?
Quoting bizso09
But obviously even though both A and C use the same word ("me"), they each refer to their own individual selves, which are different. If I know the people in question, or can see or hear them, I can figure that out myself. On the other hand, you have no way of knowing whether I am just a single person replying to you or some kind of committee.
Really, this is all about language. I don't see the relevance to your initial post.
The "you" must be part of the universe, because the universe includes everything
Quoting Echarmion
Agree.
Quoting Echarmion
Exactly.
Quoting Echarmion
By person, do you mean the limbs, the body, the thought, the mind or the perspective? When you build up a person step by step, at one point you gotta add the "you".
Quoting Echarmion
Agree.
Quoting Echarmion
Everyone experiences their own world, but there is still a single "The world" out there, because there is one everything.
Quoting Echarmion
Yes, but it refers to two different entities.
Quoting Echarmion
Correct. The only thing I know is that right now I'm person X writing this post, and the first perspective resides in me.
Quoting h060tu
I'm trying to prove it here objectively, without resorting to assumptions.
I mean the mind. I don't see how this is a step by step process (or how we'd know it to be one). The "you" is part of an interconnected whole, not some kind of soul you add later.
Since he apparently is directing his question to himself...
...I wonder why he does not have an answer?
But then, you can't make observations, so...?
The contradiction in your argument comes from the fact that you regard the world as a collection of distinct entities, and while doing so, you assume the viewpoint of an outsider observer.
You say A is A, B is B, C is C, it's all self evident, they are part of the topology of the universe, they are their own flags. But this is incomplete because the world does not just consist of A, B and C but also an additional observer that is making the statement about A, B and C. You cannot ignore the observer.
Fundamentally, things must exist in relation to a specific reference point or observer. They cannot exist without a reference point. When something exists, it must exist in relation to something. That something is called "the first person perspective". This must be unique because there is a single way for things to either exist or not exist.
When you mistakenly introduce other perspectives, then again you talk about a collection of entities, so those entities must again exist in relation to some reference point. Basically, when I say there is a reference point, I'm making the statement that "things exist". These two statements are equivalent.
If you try to derive this argument from your perspective, you will arrive at the conclusion that that reference point for things to exist is in fact "your reference point". Every person can do this. However, we've seen that there is only one such reference point. Hence, there is a contradiction, because you cannot have multiple worlds out there with multiple reference points, when there is a single way for everything to exist or not. It's a binary choice.
The reason the reference point resides in me, is because I know I exist here and I observe. I do not observe the world through the sky, or space or ether or some other person's or animal's point of view. So I know for sure that there is at least one reference point. And since there cannot be other reference points, I know that mine is the one. The alternative is that there is a fundamental paradox in the universe that cannot be explained with reasoning.
I'd be interested to hear how we could conceptualise an metaphysically objective world without assuming the viewpoint of a hypothetical outside observer.
Quoting bizso09
By definition, the metaphysically objective world has no observer, because then it would no longer be objective. Of course to imagine any kind of world, I have to imagine myself observing it. But that's a crutch my imagination needs, it doesn't say anything about how things actually are like.
Your argument would also lead to an infinite recursion of observers, because any observe would have to be part of a yet deeper reality, ad infinitum.
Quoting bizso09
So, it follows that the observer also doesn't exist, because it cannot relate to itself. So what's the category of being that applies to the observer?
Quoting bizso09
Why must entities exist? By your own logic, entities either enter into a relation to an observer, in which case they exist, or they don't. But crucially there are entities that don't exist but still have properties.
Quoting bizso09
I don't see how the contradiction follows. If, and I would agree with this, existence is a relation and not a property, then the same entity can be in different relations with different observers.
Quoting bizso09
But you don't exist, according to your own definition.
It is not possible. In the previous example about A,B,C, you'd be ignoring the observer, "yourself", typing out your reply on this forum. But in fact, I'd be ignoring myself observing your typing. The ultimate observer in this chain is me right now watching myself type on my laptop. If we're talking about the world, then we have to include this. We cannot conceptualise it away.
Quoting Echarmion
It's not just a crutch of imagination, it's a fundamental part of reality we live in.
Quoting Echarmion
That's correct, but you can show that no matter how many recursions you do, you will always end up with a single ultimate observer. If there was no observer in the end, that would mean nothing would exist.
Quoting Echarmion
The observer and existence itself are the same thing. If something exists, then it is observed by the reference point. If something does not exist, it is not observed.
Quoting Echarmion
What is a thing that does not exist but has property? If we're talking about the world that is everything, then that includes that. There is nothing outside of it.
Quoting Echarmion
Existence is a binary thing. Either something is included in "everything" or it's not. There is no "something" outside of everything. You cannot have multiple existences because by definition the world would expand to include it all.
I'd go so far as to say that existence is in fact "unary" because if something does not exist, you cannot make any statements about it. For example, when you talk about dead people, you're talking about things that exist in the universe at a particular point of time, or the memories of them, but they still exist there.
Quoting Echarmion
Since the observer is existence itself, and we're typing on our laptops right now, we can conclude that there is existence and hence there is an observer. So we know that there is at least one observer out there. We also know that there cannot be more than one. So the question remains, where is this unique observer or reference point? Well, it's where the first person perspective resides. If I ask you the question, do you have first person perspective, my answer would be "no", because you have a third person perspective. If I ask myself, do I have first person perspective, then the answer is "yes". Hence, I know the observer is me. There is absolutely no contradiction for me. The contradiction arises because you claim you also have a "first person perspective". But by definition in any reality, there is one first person perspective, not multiple. You cannot have multiple first person perspectives, because then those would not be "truly" first person, from the perspective of the ultimate observer.
If you don't want to believe this, because you think you are an observer, that's fine. But in that case, you must believe that I am not a real observer, and you are the only one. Do you believe that? The fact that I have proof known to me about me being an observer would be irrelevant for you. In particular, you cannot come to the conclusion that you are not the only observer.
So if you're the ultimate observer, where do you reside? You cannot be part of the world, according to this argument, so what's the term for the world + the observer?
Quoting bizso09
But, again, "we" don't live in that reality, but outside of it, as observers.
Quoting bizso09
This sentence is contradictory. If there is an infinite recursion of observers, there is no ultimate observer. One excludes the other.
Quoting bizso09
That doesn't work. Either existence is a relation between the observer and the observed, or it is the observer. It cannot be both. If "existence" means "to be observed by the reference point" it cannot at the same time mean "to be a point of reference".
You're going to have to decide on the definitions you want to use.
Quoting bizso09
The red fire breathing winged dragon in my garage.
Quoting bizso09
Again, you're contradicting yourself. If the world is that which is observed, the observer must be outside of it.
Quoting bizso09
There is no logical connection here between the first sentence and the following sentences. Yes existence is binary. It doesn't follow that everything exists.
Quoting bizso09
You could use existence in this way, but it would clash with the definition you have been using above.
Quoting bizso09
Refer to my point above as to why this doesn't work.
Quoting bizso09
And just where is that?
Quoting bizso09
That's not a contradiction, but a disagreement. And your use of language here is really weird.
Quoting bizso09
I'd like to see that definition.
Quoting bizso09
It should be obvious from this bit to you that your conclusion is absurd, and therefore there probably is a mistake in your reasoning.
Who knows? Everyone is entitled to their dreams.
Ok let's take a step back. I'll try to derive the argument from your point of view.
Do you agree that things exist?
Do you agree that you are and have a perspective?
Do you agree that others have a perspective?
Given that you answered all 3 of these questions "yes", tell me how you know which perspective you have? Where is that information stored?
The answer to this question is you know it, because one of the perspectives is seen from the first person point of view, while others are not. The extra information in the world, which tells you who you are is contained in the first person point of view. That is the differentiator.
Now let's assume that there is no first person point of view. That means you cannot observe the world. Observation can only happen in first person. So that means you do not exist.
You are not your body, not your thoughts, not your mind because those things can still exist without a perspective. You are the perspective itself. You are the angle of observation.
If you do not exist, does the world still exist? As far as you're concerned, the world comes about because you observe it. In fact, if you do not exist, then nothing makes sense anymore for you, because everything requires you to be here in the first place. If you say that the world still exists when you do not, then that statement makes no sense.
But since things do exist for you, that means you are. And for you, things can exist, precisely because you are here to observe them. Note, do not confuse observing with knowing. Things can still be observed without knowing them. Observation merely means that they can be related to you in some form.
Next question, why don't other people have perspectives? That's because perspective has to be in first person. In the world you live, only you have that. So it makes no sense to talk about others having first perspectives, because you know that only you have it.
You might say, others do have first perspectives in their own worlds. But if you talk about these "other" worlds, that means they exist, and as a result, you can observe them within your world. If you observe their perspectives, they won't be first person anymore, because they are "other" and not you.
If these other worlds are outside of your world, then as far as you're concerned, they do not exist all, because in order for things to exist, they must be observable for you. So when you say, these other perspectives exist and are outside of your world, that's a nonsensical statement.
Why is perspective a thing in the world? Simply because it tells you who you are. Are you a thing in the world? How do you know that you are a thing? It's because things exist for you. If you were not a thing, nothing would exist for you, and it would make no sense to have this conversation between us.
The final bit of the argument says that every person can derive this argument, leading to the conclusion that only their perspective is first. However, you know that only you have the first perspective because that's what defines you, and other perspectives are not first. Hence, although it looks like there is a contradiction, there is no contradiction at all.
Nonetheless, you cannot prove this to others, because doing so would require sharing your first person perspective with them, at which point others would become "you" and you would need to prove things to yourself, which is unnecessary, as you already know that you are you.
I don't know which perspective I have. I just know I have a perspective. To use Descarte's famous form: I think, therefore something creates thoughts that make it seem like there is an "I" to which these thoughts belong.
And that's the answer to the second question: The information isn't stored in compartment. Rather it is a property that "I" have.
Quoting bizso09
I don't see other perspectives at all. It's not like I have several perspectives, and only one is first person. I have only one perspective, period. I am aware of other people "like me" through the senses, and in a book or movie we'd call that "third person point of view", but it's fundamentally different from my actual perspective, which also includes my thoughts, feelings etc.
Quoting bizso09
This is all fine, but the question then arises: If the world is nothing without me, and only exists if I observe it, then I am not part of the world. But then logically, there must be something which includes both me and the world as parts of a greater whole. What would that be?
Quoting bizso09
Well, seems we arrived back at Descartes. But the common criticism to Descartes is that he smuggled the "I" into his proof. I have a feeling the same criticism applies to your statement here. I experience things, so something must create and/or have that experience, but it's not necessarily "I".
Quoting bizso09
I don't see how it doesn't make sense. After all, what I am doing is assuming other people are like me. And in doing so, I am attributing to them a first person perspective because I have one, but which of course I cannot actually prove they have.
Quoting bizso09
No. Again, I can talk about things that don't exist. Like Dragons. This seems to be the core of your misunderstanding. Everything that follows on from this no longer makes any sense.
Quoting bizso09
I don't think I am a thing. Things are objects. I am a subject.
Quoting bizso09
Did we need an argument proving that only you have your own first person perspective?
Quoting bizso09
Sure. That all seems entirely reasonable. It also seems to be the exact opposite of what you claimed until now. Perhaps there is a rather large misunderstanding here.
If you look over that discussion you will see that it shows your position to be incoherent.
But of course that will not stop you form continuing.
Yes, so you are the first person perspective. The other perspectives are not you.
Quoting Echarmion
That's ok, the only requirement is that the information must exist somewhere. You can make a property.
Quoting Echarmion
You are part of the world that you observe. It's your world, which is defined by you. And this world includes everything that can exist for you, including yourself. There is nothing outside of this.
This also means that you and your world are actually the same thing. Everything in your world is you. But that doesn't mean that other perspectives are you too, rather it means other perspectives do not exist, because they would be not you.
Things come to exist via the first person perspective, which is you. When you say something exists, it means it is observable by the first person perspective that is you. The perspective is like a coordinate system. It makes no sense to talk about non-existence, so we can only talk about existence, which includes everything there is, observed by the first person perspective, aka you.
At the end of the day, it's only the you that exists. Everything is included in the you. That table you see over there is part of your observation via the first person perspective.
Quoting Echarmion
I'm not talking about experience here, merely just a perspective or reference point. The fact that in the world the perspective does reside with a human that has experience is coincidental. You could imagine the perspective floating in the sky, and not tied to any particular human. The only requirement is that it has to be the first person point of view.
Quoting Echarmion
In the world you live in, you know that only you have the first person perspective. You cannot attribute something to others that you know they don't have. You know for sure they don't have a first perspective, because if they did, they would be you, but you know that you are not them. Does this make sense?
The only way for them to have their own first perspectives is to be in their own separate worlds. If their world is observable to you, then their world is actually part of yours, and not really separate. So they would not have the first perspective, because you would have it. If their world is outside of yours, then that means you cannot observe it, and as a result, it doesn't exist for you. So again, their first perspective does not exist.
Quoting Echarmion
Well, if you don't think other worlds exist where others have first perspective, then it sounds like we agree and I don't need to prove anything to you. This proves my point that only you have the first person perspective, and not others.
In addition, you cannot make statements about things that do not exist for you. When you talk about Dragon, you're actually referring to the idea of a Dragon shown in literature or movies. Or your imagination of what a dragon looks like. Or your example here. These things exist in your world. If you're talking about real dragon that roamed the Earth, well you can't because that thing does not exist. In fact, you wouldn't even know how to describe a real dragon on Earth, because it is not part of your observable world. (and I don't know it either)
Quoting Echarmion
It's ok, you just need to exist, can be anything, subject or object.
Quoting Echarmion
I can prove that only I have the first perspective the same way everybody else can. But from the argument above, it is clear that there can be only one first person perspective, not multiple. So it's not possible for everyone to have it. Since I know that I have one, it means I have that perspective.
You can't prove it objectively either, because objective means self-evident. It's obviously not "self-evident" to me that I don't exist, and only you do. In fact, it's the opposite in my case.
"As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me."
Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Value
The only true solipsists are schizophrenic. Philosophical (a-schizo) solipsism is a poseur's parlor game.
For details see Louis A. Sass's Madness and Modernism.
You can't prove it objectively. Too many epistemological obstacles you cannot hope to climb.
This is a logical contradiction. The observer cannot also be the observed.
Quoting bizso09
Yeah, that's Solipsism. But Solipsism runs into the problem of performative contradiction: you still act as if there was a world outside of yourself. Unless you want to die of starvation, which I wouldn't recommend.
Quoting bizso09
No, it doesn't. Not because I don't understand what you are saying, but because you aren't making a logical and convincing argument.
Quoting bizso09
But obviously their world is not observable to me. That doesn't mean it's not there.
Quoting bizso09
You keep forgetting that your definition of existence is merely "things I observe". So lots of things that are real don't exist. That's not a problem. What is a problem is that you then assume - without any justification - that only things that exist are real.
Please set out your definitive definitions for what your terms mean.
Quoting bizso09
Nonsense. A dragon is a scaled animal with 4 legs, bat-like wings, a tail and a long toothed snout. It also can breathe fire.
A dragon is currently, in the real world, sitting in my garage. I can't go in because if I try, it breathes fire.
There you go, I talked about a real dragon that roams the earth (in this case, my garage). It has defined properties (some of which I listed) and a specific position in time and space. It's just like every other object.
You claim the dragon doesn't exist. But in order to make that claim, you have to understand what I am talking about in the first place.
Okay, take 3.
There is nothing unique about an objective world. There are things in it. Now add subjectivity. Still nothing unique, many subjective experiences. Now select one of the subjective experiences to be me. Now that subjective experience is unique, because it's me.
The me in this case is merely the first person perspective (FPP). Nothing else, not the body, not the mind. Now when you say you have a FPP too, that means there are multiple FPPs. But if there are multiple, they are actually the same, because one FPP is still a FPP, as it's observed from the same place. If I regard your FPP actually a third person perspective (TPP), then in my world those two things are different.
If there were genuinely multiple FPPs, that would require multiple worlds that are completely disjoint. But since there is only one world with everything inside it, how can this be? That would mean that my FPP cannot observe that world at all. But since FPP is just a relation with respect to which things can exist, how could something exist and not be inside my FPP? Anything outside of my FPP cannot possibly exist for me.
What do you mean by "unique"? What is the significance of uniqueness? Usually, when we say something is unique we imply some value judgement. If you just mean unique as "no other thing has the the exact same properties", you're wrong. Every object and every subject is unique in that sense. There are no two identical "things".
Quoting bizso09
Subjectively, for you, that is the case. It doesn't follow that it's objectively the case. The only way your argument works is if you deny objectivity altogether, which would make you a solipist.
Quoting bizso09
There is one objective world, on which there are multiple perspectives, which create smaller subjective worlds.
Quoting bizso09
Your last sentence is correct. The one before it isn't. Things not inside your FPP don't exist for you. It doesn't follow they don't exist at all.
This actually follows logically from assuming there is a "perspective" on the first place. For there to be a "perspective" there must be something outside of the first person that the perspective can point to. If there isn't, you don't have a "perspective", you're just dreaming.
This does not explain how one of the subjective worlds becomes me. You say there's a world with multiple TPPs. Where does the FPP come in?
Quoting Echarmion
Things can only exist in a FPP, and not outside, because FPP defines existence. These things don't have to be knowable, but they must be observable.
Quoting Echarmion
Yes, but these two things are equivalent, because for something to exist, it is observed and vice versa.
Quoting Echarmion
Ok, let's be objective. Given I don't exist, what can I say about the world. Hmmm.... nothing?
The main issue lies in the statement that there are multiple FPPs, but each FPP actually must include everything. There is no such thing as something that exists in one FPP, but not another FPPs, because this is akin to saying that object X exists and it does not exist, since FPP defines existence. This leads to a contradiction. It's easy to follow how this implies that there's only one FPP.
Fascinating! If it wasn't logically impossible for you to "assume, each person has their own world, with their own flags that point to them" why, all of a sudden, is there just ONE "...another flag outside of this,..."? :chin:
No, I don't say that. I say there is a world with multiple first person perspectives. I reject your idea that the world can only be what is observable.
Quoting bizso09
Semantics. You can call it whatever you like, but there is something beyond what is observable, most notably the observer itself.
Quoting bizso09
No, they're not. In order to observe something, it must have been there before you started observing it. Else it's not observation, but imagination. Do you think the world disappears when you close your eyes?
Quoting bizso09
That's indeed an issue, because it's wrong.
Quoting bizso09
There is no contradiction, because something can exist in one perspective but not in another. You can't just drop the "in one perspective / in another perspective" for your conclusion. Here is what you're saying in a more formal format:
P1: Existence means being observed by an observer in their first person perspective
P2: Existence is binary, either something exist or it does not exist.
C1: Therefore something is either observed or it is not.
C2: Therefore, there is only one observer.
So, where is the problem? You ommitted the qualification that was inherent in your first premise from the conclusion. The correct C1 is:
Therefore, something is either observed by an observer in their first person perspective or it is not. C2 does not follow from this.
Please tell me the line number that is incorrect.
FPP: first person perspective
TPP: third person perspective
1. A world includes everything there is.
2. There is nothing outside of everything.
3. Hence a world is everything.
4. Everything is the same as existence.
5. Hence, a world is the same as existence.
6. There is one existence.
7. Hence there is one world.
8. In any world, there is one me.
9. In any world, me is the same as FPP.
10. Hence, in any world, there is one FPP.
11. In any world, there can be multiple TPPs.
12. In any world, FPP is not equal to any TPP.
13. Hence, in any world if there are multiple FPPs, then they are the same.
14. If there are multiple FPPs then there are multiple worlds.
15. But there is only one world, so one FPP.
Sure.
2. and 3. are superflous. They're just restating 1.
Most of 4. to 7. could also be ommitted, since 7. is already implied by 1.
9. I don't accept without further argument. Me is not the same as FPP. Me is an example of a FPP.
I'd also diasgree with 11. Since, as we discussed earlier, there isn't actually a "Third person perspective". That's just a shorthand for imagining other people's FPP. But this disagreement is less relevant to the point.
13. doesn't follow from either 11. or 12. nor from any other part of the argument. It also contradicts 10.
13. follows from 10. Given that in a world there is only one FPP, if there are multiple FPPs in that world, then they are all the same FPP.
Quoting Echarmion
That's ok, 9. is actually not needed for 15., if you accept 10. which states that in any given world, there is one FPP in that world. Note, this still permits other worlds having their own FPPs, in 14.
Obviously I don't accept 10 if I didn't accept 9. Because 10 is the conclusion that follows from 9, and without 9, there is no 10. WTF...
Quoting bizso09
That makes very little sense. 10 says there is one FPP. 13 says if there are multiple, they are the same. How can there be multiple in the first case, if there is only one? No other part of the argument talks about multiple FPP. So, at best, 13. is redundant and confusing.
Ok, so you say
A. In a world, me is one of FPPs.
B. In a world, there are multiple FPPs that are distinct.
C. In a world, FPPs and TPPs are the same.
D. Hence, in a world me is one of TPPs
D. is clearly False. Are you a third person perspective in your world?
I say
16. In a world, FPPs and TPPs are not the same [12.]
17. In a world, there has to be at least one FPP.
18. In a world, everything can be viewed from an FPP.
19. In a world, there is nothing outside of everything [2.]
20. In a world, if a FPP views another TPP, they are not the same.
21. In a world, if a FPP views another FPP, they are the same.
22. Hence, in a world all FPPs are the same [13.]
23. If there are multiple distinct FPPs, then there are multiple distinct worlds [14.]
No idea where you get C from. It's not anything I said and you haven't provided an argument for it.
As for the rest:
18. Is questionable. I don't see how you could possibly know that.
How do you get 21? How do you view another first person perspective in the first place?
Great. Then we agree on 16.
So you say.
E. In a world, an FPP cannot view something.
F. In a world, an FPP cannot view another distinct FPP.
I say
24. If an FPP cannot view something, then they are in different distinct worlds.
25. Hence, in a world, an FPP can view everything [18.]
26. In a world, an FPP can view itself.
27. In a world, if an FPP views another FPP, then they are the same [21.]
28. In a world, an FPP cannot view another distinct FPP. [F.]
29. Hence, in a world, there is only one FPP. [10.]
30. Hence, multiple distinct FPPs are in multiple distinct worlds [23.]
We're running in circles here. You keep insisting that everything is contained in a single FPP. I keep asking for a justification. How do you know there are not things that are unobservable, but still real? Unless you can give a reasonable answer, there is little reason to continue here.
The reason is because FPP is just a reference point. A better word for observing would be "relating". If two things cannot be related to one another in any way, I don't see how they could possibly exist in the same world. If two things are completely unrelated, then they must be in different worlds. Relation implies some form of connection.
Also, what you're referring to as other FPPs in your world are in fact TPPs and can be related to you. In addition, we agreed that FPPs and TPPs are not equal to each other in any possible world.
Yeah but is it the reference point? I don't see how we could know that there aren't other reference points we don't have the same kind of access to.
Quoting bizso09
A relation can take many forms though, can it not? Is the observer / observed relation the only one? For example, we see many physical things behaving in some orderly fashion, as if they were all related to each other. Granted, being physical things, that relation might simply be their connection to us as an observer. But it might also be relations among themselves.
Quoting bizso09
That's true, but you did not title your post "In practice, I can assume to be the only observer in the world". If you want to prove something, that there is no practical difference doesn't suffice.
And again, there is one significant problem, as I see it, your view runs into. If the only relation in the world is to me, then why do I not start out omniscient and omnipotent? Why do I experience a "perspective" if I am not really looking "at" anything at all?
That's a good question, and I don't know. It's just how it is I guess. I don't attempt to answer why everything, including me, exist at all, or why things exist the way they do. My hypothesis is that things just pop into existence out of literally nothing (the void?), until they pop out. Nevertheless, I still attempt to reason about stuff, however futile or random it may seem. I know there is no point, but what else am I supposed to do, while I "am"?
Quoting Echarmion
Another thing to mention is that FPP by construction is supposed to be singular. I am not able to imagine a world from a neutral "God's eye point of view". Whatever world I can possibly think of can only be observed from FPP, and as such, I use that for the reference point.
Based on evidence I have available to me, if I had to choose between a world existing in some kind of objective neutral form, and a world where there must be a single FPP observer, my world being like that I would ipso facto choose the latter.
Here's another way to prove it.
I say:
1. There is one me.
2. You are not me.
3. Me only makes statements by numbers.
You say:
A. There is one me.
B. You are not me.
C. Me only makes statements by alphabet.
All statements are True, but C and 3 contradict.
That's exactly the performative contradiction i have been talking about. You claim to believe something, but you act as if you didn't. This suggests that either you only claim you believe it, or you only believe you believe it.
Apart from that, don't all things come from your FPP, according to you view?
Quoting bizso09
Yeah, but does this limitation of your imagination say anything about how the world really is?
Quoting bizso09
But you choosing the latter is quite different from you proving the latter is actually the case.
Quoting bizso09
Sorry, but I cannot make heads or tails of that.
Simple: You are not in the world as you are not there.
Well, reasoning requires language, and hence the other. Reasoning purely de se therefore involves a contradiction...
This seems to me the common error in ll arguments for solipsism.
Is there a question here? Or is it a puzzling about "this one", "that one", or "John", overcome as the child learns how those words are used?
And no, I think the child wonders about these things often in language, often not – and being able to ask de se questions shows an ordinary mastery of language, not a confusion about it.
And so you can say 'if I were you...' But this does not mean 'if Snakes Alive were Banno....' nor does it mean 'If Snakes alive had the qualities of Banno, or were in the position of Banno...'
No, rather, it's I conditionally talk about what I would do it I were you. But it's puzzling, then, that it is coherent to reason in this way on most accounts. But I think that's so much the worse for them. Not that I think these questions can bolster an argument for solipsism.
If there is, what is it?
Well, to be honest, I think nobody really knows how the world works, so if you're honest with yourself, you can admit it too.
Let's go back to the original framework:
You say
G. In a world, there is a distinct FPP that is not me.
H. Every statement is made by me.
I. G is a statement about distinct FPP.
J. Hence, me makes a statement about a distinct FPP.
I say,
31. To view something, is to form a minimal connection with something.
32. Hence, to make a statement about a thing, then has to view that thing.
33. In a world, me has to view something to make a statement about that thing.
34. In a world, me is one of FPP [D.]
35. In a world, an FPP cannot view other distinct FPP.
36. In a world, me cannot make a statement about other distinct FPP.
36 leads to contradiction with J. In particular, what was missing before is H.
Ultimately, all reasoning is de se. Even for the de re sentence "Peter wants to get elected", the complete sentence is "I believe that Peter wants to get elected". A lot of language, when objectively describing the world, removes the "I", which is a mistake.
I am not sure you understand what de se reasoning actually is. If I state sincerely, "Peter wants to get elected" then that might be equivalent to stating sincerely "I believe that Peter wants to get elected", but in most cases, though not all, nothing is added or taken away by the choice that is made. If I were suffering from amnesia and was reading an account about what Peter had been doing I might also come to the conclusion that Peter wants to get elected, and I could say outright that I believe Peter wants to get elected, and be expressing the same thing. However, if my amnesia is cured, and I am Peter, I discover something new and express that discovery when I exclaim "I am Peter!". That is de se reasoning. I could also say "I believe I am Peter", but that would not add any extra de se characteristics to what I had already expressed. The puzzle some people see in de se reasoning is, on the one hand it seems that I have uncovered some substantive information when I discover that I am Peter, but on the other it is difficult to say anything more about what I have discovered other than that, quite simply, I am Peter.
I don't disagree with this, but my lack of knowledge does not imply absence of these other FFP.
Observation is not lack of knowledge. It's the possibility of any information flow whatsoever. Here's some more:
You say:
K. There is one Me
L. In a world, Me is one of FPPs.
M. Hence in a world, Me is FPP_1
I say,
37. In a world, there is one Me
38. In a world, Me is one of FPPs
39. Hence, in a world, Me is FPP_2
40. In a world, FPP_1 and FPP_2 are two distinct FPPs
41. Hence, in a world, both FPP_1 and FPP_2 are Me
It is clear to see that 40. contradicts with 41. There are a few possible ways to resolve this, but each of them leads to further contradictions:
42.a. FPP_1 and FPP_2 are the same
42.b. In a world, Me does not exist.
42.c. In a world, there are multiple Me.
42.d. FPP_1 and FPP_2 are in two distinct worlds
42.a is incorrect because Me has access to the FPP of bizso09 but not to that of Echarmion.
42.b is incorrect because Me has access to the FPP of bizso09. If Me did not exist, Me would have no access to this FPP.
42.c is incorrect, because Me is by definition singular.
42.d is incorrect because there is one world that includes everything in existence.
This leads us back to the point where
43. In a world, there is only one FPP. [10.]
Quoting jkg20
That's totally correct. However, I'd say the difference is 1) I am a neutral God, narrating that "Peter wants to get elected" or 2) I am Peter and I want to get elected or 3) I am this person typing now and noting that "Peter wants to get elected". I know that the correct choice is 3), but with respect to the objective reality, there is no difference between 1) 2) or 3). So where does the information come from to select 3)?
Quoting Daniel
It observes itself. The reference point is like a coordinate system for existence. As an exercise, ask yourself how you know that you are you. Well, you do, because you simply are.
Let me correct this for you:
L. In a world, Echarmion is one of FPPs.
M. Hence in a world, Echarmion is FPP_1
I say,
37. In a world, there is one Biz
38. In a world, Biz is one of FPPs
39. Hence, in a world, Biz is FPP_2
40. In a world, FPP_1 and FPP_2 are two distinct FPPs
41. Hence, in a world, both FPP_1 and FPP_2 are Echarmion and Biz
If you conflate "me" and "you" and call it "me" you can put together some kind of argument for solipsism. But it's a simple - not to mention outlandish - mistake. It's obviously forced and sophistic.
Quoting bizso09
Before being able to observe itself, it must exist. Don't you agree? The question is how can it exist before being subject to that first observation that you say is required for its existence?
I never conflated "me" and "you". Every statement correctly describes the world in its own right. It is impossible to make a statement without including who made that statement. No matter what I do, I cannot abstract myself away. Let me correct that for you, so it's accurate from your perspective:
In a world, there is one Me
In a world, Me is ZzzoneiroCosm,
In a world, there is one Biz,
In a world, there is one Echarmion
Even this is incorrect, because ultimately, I for a fact know that Me is Biz and not ZzzoneiroCosm. And while I'm reading all these statements on this forum, the Me has not jumped to Zzz or Ech. However, I'm unable to prove or communicate this, because in the physical world, nothing would have changed even if the Me had jumped. The Me is a non-physical entity that exists in the world. So the next best thing I can do is for you to derive the argument as if the Me was the person you are...
If you conflate "subjectivity" and "objectivity", and call it "objectivity" you can put together some kind of argument for realism. But it's a simple - not to mention outlandish - mistake. It's obviously forced and sophistic.
In my view, the whole thing, the world, and the perspective, just spontaneously jumps into existence out of nothing. I don't know how I got here, all I know is that I'm here, and everything else is. In addition, observation doesn't bring objects into existence. It's more like everything happens together.
Have you considered the idea that there is no such information? There is a distinction between ability based knowledge and factual knowledge, between knowing how to play a guitar and knowing the answers to a history test. Whilst the concept of information might be useful in analysis of having the latter kind of knowledge, and in the analysis of acquiring the former kind, that alone does not entail that all knowledge just is possession of information. De se reasoning may not involve gaining new information. At least, you have yet to argue that it must.
Having no such information would entail me existing in some kind of weird superposition of all 3 choices. Like being God, Peter and bizso09 at the same time. Or me not existing at all, in which case I have no idea who's writing this message right now. It's some dude called Biz, but that's about it, and I have no clue what he's on about. In fact, I don't even know what's happening since apparently I don't even exist?!
You can either take the Me for granted, but then you admit that your reality is the only possible world out there. Or you can assume an outside world, but then you need to account for the Me in it. What doesn't work is assuming an outside world and ignoring the Me, in which case you literally have no way to explain why you're seeing the FPP of the person that you are.
Quoting jkg20
Ability or factual knowledge are just different encodings of information, but the information exists in both cases. Information in this case is like entropy and it should collapse uncertainty.
That needs arguing for, not just stating.
That needs arguing for, not just stating.
You can't know of others are conscious or just philosophic zombies.