Darkneos

It's not a convention, it's what solipsism IS. Period. Stop making it other than what it is, it's not working and getting off track.

Not to mention all this got way off track from my original post about whether the argument followed or was just nonsense.

It's not, you're just trying to patch it up to be something other than what it really is. Like people said about my first post with that proof, it's n...

You didn't. None of your logic followed.

I’m not holding it to any sort of standard that is what it is not matter how you dress it up to sound even a little cogent. It’s just another unprovab...

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 aga...

Still wrong, again.

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 opposi...

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 ...

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 the...

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 ...

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 e...

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 c...

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 supp...

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 inter...

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=127587...

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 EXIS...

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 makin...

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

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 ...

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 jus...

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 fo...

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 pur...

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...

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 th...

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 ...

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.

Biological processes take place at a level above that which quantum physics operates hence quantum physics has nothing to offer in the realm of biolog...

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 i...

More what if nonsense.

Not really.

I think you might agree with this take I found: Though I don't get this one:

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 a...

Not sure what you're smoking but those studies don't prove your claim, especially the second one. To reiterate, it's not quantum physics. Again Biophy...

Uhh no they aren't. Metaphysical claims don't have truth values, they are all unfalsifiable and have no impact on reality. A little, but again that's ...

Again, no not even close. Your case isn't different responses to the same thing. I'm talking about seeing a spoon where you see a fork. Like I said no...

What does any of that mean?

Don't think that's how it works. None of that is crazy and it sounds like you're misrepresenting quantum mechanics. The stuff that's crazy only applie...