You don't just have my word, you have my argument, which I've made over my past posts on this thread. The heart of that argument is that the question of what reality is and whether or not objective reality exists is not a scientific question, it is a metaphysical, i.e. a philosophical, one. The answer to the question is in philosophy, not science. Scientists are not generally very good metaphysicians.
There's not much more I can say. If you don't get it or you disagree, there's no place else for this conversation to go.
Also - note the poster in the second Quora link you provided agrees with my position, although Quora is not generally considered an authoritative source. You'll find all sorts of inconsistencies and disagreements there. — T Clark
Are you serious or sarcastic right now? I think solipsism being true would be the end of any sort of science. — Darkneos
Not really. Kastrup is very clear it is not solipsism and it certainly doesn't read this way to me. But you need to read the full account. I know some people share your view, but I don't see solipsism at all - just as others can't see anything but solipsism.
The clue is in the notion of universal mind. All of reality is held by this mind and you and all beings are 'dissociated alters' of this one great cosmic consciousness. Solipsism by contrast is the argument that only you exist. For Kastrup and perhaps Schopenhauer, it would be closer to say you don't really exist, so solipsism isn't even on the table. — Tom Storm
So what about the Wigner's friend experiment. — Darkneos
That's not true. — frank
Let that sink in : there is no way to empirically tell apart different interpretations of quantum mechanics. One might even suspect that this isn't really science. It smells more like . . . metaphysics. — Massimo Pigliucci
Helpful video. I now "understand" the experiment Andrew M was trying to explain to me over in the truth thread, and it — sadly or happily — connects to the discussion I'm having with @Metaphysician Undercover about past, future, alethic modalities and determinateness. Was so hoping I could stay out of quantum stuff, but I guess I'll have to give up that dream. — Srap Tasmaner
I haven't watched all of this, because I try not to think about quantum mechanics, but Alastair Wilson has interesting things to say about the relation between physics and metaphysics as someone near the frontlines. — Srap Tasmaner
We noted that our various versions of quantum mechanics with collapse were, near
enough, empirically equivalent. But this equivalence does not extend to the no-collapse
hypothesis. If it is true, each of us will eventually gain evidence that supports it. When you
find yourself still alive after facing repeated danger, and you have far outlived the people
around you, that is just what you should have expected under no-collapse quantum
mechanics, according to the corrected intensity rule. However it is an enormously improbable occurrence under quantum mechanics with collapse. Thus no-collapse quantum
mechanics has enjoyed a predictive success which quantum mechanics with collapse fails
to match. Thus you have gained evidence against collapse.
There's no way yet. It hasn't been established that there's no way in principle. — frank
If someone wants to claim that no quantum theories can be tested even in principle, that's a positive claim and requires some support. It's a strong claim, so it needs strong support.
You just misunderstood the quote, that's all. No biggie. — frank
Berkeley says "to be is to be perceived" and this seems to presuppose "self-perceived being" that cannot perceive other selves only ("ideas of") bodies, etc (i.e. as @Banno has said, IIRC, 'idealism implies that only what can be known (directly) is real and therefore solipsism – only oneself is real – because one only knows oneself as / to be a self'). Of course, subjective idealism is only one flavor ...Can you describe how idealism leads to solipsism? — Tom Storm
I haven't a clue but I've recently speculated about that on a thread discussing 2001: A Spece Odyssey.I've not immersed myself in this world but would you know off hand just who are the candidates supposedly behind these notions of simulation? Is it generally some kind of organic programmer, or are we part of an endless recursion of IT simulations? — Tom Storm
:fire:I've said it before. I'll say it again. Questions about our reality are not science. — T Clark
I think, in the Western tradition, idealism-solipsism goes back to, or starts with, Neoplatonism wherein only the One is real and all others are merely "emenations" (ideas) of One (nous) — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.