if I have a theory which makes a prediction, and the prediction doesn't work out, what is it mistaken in relation to? — Wayfarer

I don't understand. Could you give an example?

Eli

But the problem is that some ideas have physical consequences. If you have a theory that predicts some result, and the result contradicts the theory, then you have to update your theory to accomodate the results, don't you? Whereas, if you were only dealing with mental constructs, this couldn't occur, could it? — Wayfarer

It could definitely occur in my theory. As I said before, Chapter 1 is simply an introduction to the theory; it sets out the most basic rules and premises of said theory. So far, we've just barely touched on reality being a mental construct - I plan to evidence this further as well as present arguments for contradictory theories in later chapters. i also believe it was George Berkeley that argued a similar point and came up with a really good response for it - I'll see if I can find it again.

In my theory's view: the "physical consequences" you talk about are once again - mental constructs. Maybe not "constructs", but you get what I mean. These physical experiences and "consequences" are all in the mind. And once you start to understand that idea, that everything you perceive as physical is all in the mind, you start to understand the theory on a bigger scale.

Eli

But I did have a quick read, but you lost me at 'solipsism'. Solipsism is the idea that 'only my mind exists' - not 'only mind is real', like idealism, but only my mind is real. There are quite a few posts about this idea, which I regard as symptomatic of the narcissism of our culture. Not saying you're narcissistic - it's just a general comment that comes to mind when I read about solipsism. — Wayfarer

Hi. If you had read just onto the next paragraph you would've seen I was just mentioning it. My theory actually rejects solipsism entirely.

Of course. But you can't question, for example, gravity, unless you really can levitate. Look, I also regularly argue against 'scientism' - the idea that 'the scientific worldview' is normative in the way that the biblical worldview once was. But I try and do so on philosophical grounds (and cop a fair bit for it also, I might add). But saying, 'put aside the fundamental discoveries of 20th century science' is a big ask. Myself, I would try to argue for a philosophy which accomodates such discoveries. — Wayfarer

I'm not questioning gravity; it's there. I'm not disregarding science and math entirely; but I believe firmly (and I state this in my theory) that reality is a mental construct. If reality is a mental construct, what does that make math/science, which attempts to explain the physical workings of reality? My theory relies heavily on Idealism as you can tell - and if reality is a mental construct, then the laws and rules made to accommodate it must then also be mental constructs.

without which you would have no computer to express your ideas. — Wayfarer

Hi.

I totally agree with you. Science and math are staples of our reality, I don't deny that. I know a lot of what I'm saying contradicts itself - but the next Chapter really touches on the concept of an immaterial, or constructed, reality. If we look at reality as a mental construct, we can then say science and math are also mental constructs. However, I'm not disregarding science and math whatsoever. . I apologize if my word choice made it sound that way.

Eli

Hi 0 thru 9.

Thanks for your critique, I'm glad you enjoyed the read! My intention wasn't to be unscientific, but to show that science and math are just constructs of the mind (a concept just barely touched on in Chapter 1).

Chapter 2 is much longer and goes deeper into the theory, explaining some of the concepts learned in Chapter 1. Later chapters go into arguments against contradictory theories, as well as provide evidence for mine.

Thanks for your input!

Eli