The fact that solipsism exists as a concept means it must be true on some level.

Skip to content
# The fact that solipsism exists as a concept means it must be true on some level.

###

The fact that solipsism exists as a concept means it must be true on some level.

Solipsism is true in the sense that the explanation that the external world is "real" is not privileged over it being simulation, except in the sense that supposing that one lives in e.g. some laboratory as in your image supposes two universes (the real one containing the jar and the computer feeding the brain inputs, and the inner universe of the brain), whereas this just being the real universe only requires one. That's one's a topic of debate, though.

It's false in the same sense in which all of Western etymology is false, namely that it tries to make the jump from "a second universe might exists" to "a second universe must exist" or, more generally: "that which is not provable beyond all doubt is false". Something being false a determinative claim, it's a positive assertion, which Western logic, in practice, makes:

>I might live in a simulation, THEREFORE I disbelieve that this world is real

which is equivalent to

>I might live in a simulation, THEREFORE I do live in a simulation.

The fact that a negation is used obscures this fact, but solipsism is, in reality, totally credulous, just in a bit of a roundabout way.

I also meant "epistemology", obviously.

"Unprovable" being the same as "false" is a historically developed bias, due to people claiming all sorts of fantastical and unprovable entities to be real, and most of skepticism having had to reject such baseless claims. Over time, this introduced the bias as something which cannot be proven to be the case must actively not be the case. This might be a useful heuristic, but it's is logically demonstrably false. If it were not so, then all mathematical theorems could be proven, the cardinality of the real numbers would be the same as the cardinality of the natural numbers, and 0=1 would follow.

Well, all right, let's be strict: there's also two forms of unprovability. One is a proof of the independence of a theorem from a set of axioms (theoretical unprovability, meaning no correct proof can exist in principle) and practical unprovability, which might simply be a failure to prove something. Assuming that solipsism in whatever form (brain in a vat, the cosmic mind hallucinating, ancestor simulations, etc.) is theoretically unprovable and undisprovable, the implication holds. The second form of unprovability, i.e. "nobody's been able to prove it this far, so it's probably impossible" is simply the argument from incredulity.

The reason for this bias is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of logic which managed to somehow be known about (Gödel's 1st incompleteness theorem), but also be ignored. That every statement is either true of false (relative to what?) is an assumption. It's an assumption that holds for most everyday statements like "I have an apple in my hand", but obviously, it would be. Without this assumption of the excluded middle, however, any statement is, if not proof for it has been adduced, indeterminate, and "true" and "false" are determinations, the result of a reasoning-algorithm. The point of Gödel's 1st incompleteness theorem is that, relative to any axion-set and rules of inference ("theory"), certain statements will be beyond this algorithm to determine to be either hold or not hold (and "does not hold" is just "holds", with a negation-sign in front of it). Logic erases the algorithmic nature of reasoning, namely that it's a process, and simply imagines that the results of such reason-processes "Platonically exist"; that a program's output exists without a program. "Unprovability" is actually the statement that the logical inference algorithm will fail for certain statements.

Since this "undeterminable" is not factored into classical logics, it gets lumped in with "false". For most cases, since most random bullshit is not true, this is good enough, but it fails predictably in cases like yours.

We also do not factor in that we only have the power of reasoning to draw inferences, that we have an imagined "reasoning-device" in our heads, and we don't account for the fact that it's not infinitely powerful. Because, in instances of this epistemology-shite, the apparatus meets its limits which it does not recognize, meaning that some new "dude, what if nothing's real. Hey, are you ABSOLUTELY SURE???"-doubt can always be introduced, the brain learns to demand literally impossible proof, hence:

>oh, something's not ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN? Must be false, then.

What is this wanking about "logic defeats algorithmic nature of reason", I think you hooked up on some bullshit egocentric psychopath israeli philosophers because logic is deterministic and reality is deterministic too but it does not apply to fricking "word magic" you can't apply logic to language outside of grammatical analysis and postulate bullshit upon your interpretation of words, for that mere reason humans developed mathematical analysis, chemistry and physics to get as close as possible to a deterministic language.

"I'm holding an apple in my hand" might not be true because microscopically you never touch the apple because of electric forces but it holds true in the human sense, you literally can postulate philosophical doctrines over this moronic shit, you can't doubt existence because human language doesn't mirror reality 1:1.

There's nothing wrong with chemistry or mathematical analysis or anything, but they're human-developed technologies, so not literally perfect and finished. A professor of chemistry would not claim that chemistry is a done deal, finished science with 0 holes either. It's the tragedy of something being almost correct: classical logic is very good, but if something is very good, you're lured into thinking that it's perfect, and then whatever little blind-spots it has become invisible.

That said, I get that "just listing the facts as quickly as possible" is going too fast. On the other hand, if you do 40-50 posts, then that's people's problem. Just can't please some people innit. You know how it is.

"I'm holding an apple in my hand" is a true/false statement, that's one of those things you can determine easily (unless you want drill down into what "holds", "apple", "hand", etc. mean as you said, but's not what I mean). The calculus only fails in pretty far-out edges cases, not the basic cases for which it works. We developed it for the cases for which it works.

In cases like that of solipsism, where no obvious evidence one way or another is available is where something that works in 99% of cases is seen to not work in 100% of cases.

That said, I like your skeptical style, it reminds me a lot of myself. I might think I'm arguing correctly, but maybe not, and don't let anyone just bullshit you or make you believe anything, right on.

In reality, this so-called "absolute certainty", if you imagine "X certainty" as "taking X steps of reasoning", is simply "X+1 steps of reasoning" (X including not just natural numbers but also ordinals, and those are just differently encoded natural numbers due to coding theory, i.e. a transfinite ordinal is still written down and talked about in a finite way, using finitely many words, even if the elements are uncountable; "the set of natural numbers" is a finite string of letters, for instance), and obviously, you cannot have made X+1 steps of reasoning if you've made X.

Thus proving that the human mind is inconsistent because it implicitly assumes its own consistency per Gödel's 2nd incompleteness theorem. I don't just mean "people come up with dumb shit", everyone knows that; I mean even in the case of epistemology-people who know all that fancy math-stuff and whatnot. There was a famous controversy around this between Hilbert and Brouwer in which Hilbert took the demonstrably wrong side, despite being, as William Lane Craig, if you've ever watched his debates, "one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century". This wasn't the only time he did this, by the way; he had the same grumpy dumpy at least three times.

>The fact that solipsism exists as a concept means it must be true on some level.

Why, you can literally just make up a new concept on the spot right now. Would that now make it "true on some level", simply because it exists?. So at that point you'd have to say it's because it's a popular concept, and at that point you are just using the appeal to popularity fallacy.

the moon is made of cheese

the fact that the moon is made of cheese exists as a concept means on some levels its true - the moon is made of cheese

any homosexual can come up with some "omg so scary" theory of perception and consciousness and the true nature of the universe or whatever

here's an idea: your consciousness is actually running in the back of the mind of a hallucination of a guy who huffs his own shit fumes to get high, and it just so happens to be the universe we live in from your perspective. Crazy right? and the fact that I conceptualized it means its true on some level.

yes, God is the only existence..

God is fully solipsist.