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? — bizso09

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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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?

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. — 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".

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. — 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.

You might say, others do have first perspectives in their own worlds. But if you talk about these "other" worlds, that means they exist — 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.

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. — bizso09

I don't think I am a thing. Things are objects. I am a subject.

The final bit of the argument says that every person can derive this argument, leading to the conclusion that only their perspective is first. — bizso09

Did we need an argument proving that only you have your own first person perspective?

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. — 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.

It's nothing sensible.

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.

It's not like I have several perspectives, and only one is first person. I have only one perspective, — Echarmion

Yes, so you are the first person perspective. The other perspectives are not you.

And that's the answer to the second question: The information isn't stored in compartment. Rather it is a property that "I" have — Echarmion

That's ok, the only requirement is that the information must exist somewhere. You can make a property.

But I must be part of something, so what am I a part of? — 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.

I experience things, so something must create that experience, but it's not necessarily "I". — 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.

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. — 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.

No. Again, I can talk about things that don't exist. Like Dragons. — 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)

I don't think I am a thing. — Echarmion

It's ok, you just need to exist, can be anything, subject or object.

Did we need an argument proving that only you have your own first person perspective? — 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.

That's not very constructive.

If you mean that only you have the view of the world that is yours, i agree.
— 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. — bizso09

You don't have access to Jimmy's or Mike's . If we all did have such access, then there might well be occasions for confusion.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8162/50th-year-since-ludwig-wittgensteins-death

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.

While I don't think the argument works, there is something funny about de se reasoning that I think we haven't understood, and which allows us to ask such questions or make such speculations. It's the sort of reasoning employed in the old 'If I were you...' where what is imagined is that the 'center' or viewpoint on the very same world somehow shifts.

"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.

I'm trying to prove it here objectively, without resorting to assumptions. — bizso09

You can't prove it objectively. Too many epistemological obstacles you cannot hope to climb.

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. — bizso09

This is a logical contradiction. The observer cannot also be the observed.

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. — 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.

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? — 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.

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. — bizso09

But obviously their world is not observable to me. That doesn't mean it's not there.

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. — 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.

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) — 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.

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. — bizso09

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".

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. — 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.

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? — bizso09

There is one objective world, on which there are multiple perspectives, which create smaller subjective worlds.

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. — 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.

There is one objective world, on which there are multiple perspectives, which create smaller subjective worlds. — Echarmion

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?

Things not inside your FPP don't exist for you. — 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.

This actually follows logically from assuming there is a "perspective" on the first place — Echarmion

Yes, but these two things are equivalent, because for something to exist, it is observed and vice versa.

Your last sentence is correct. The one before it isn't. — 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.

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 — bizso09

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:

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? — bizso09

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.

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. — bizso09

Semantics. You can call it whatever you like, but there is something beyond what is observable, most notably the observer itself.

Yes, but these two things are equivalent, because for something to exist, it is observed and vice versa. — 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?

The main issue lies in the statement that there are multiple FPPs, but each FPP actually must include everything. — bizso09

That's indeed an issue, because it's wrong.

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. — 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.

Please tell me the line number that is incorrect. — bizso09

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. doesn't follow from either 11. or 12. nor from any other part of the argument. It also contradicts 10 — Echarmion

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.

9. I don't accept without further argument. Me is not the same as FPP. Me is an example of a FPP. — 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.

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. — bizso09

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...

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. — 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.

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... — Echarmion

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.]

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 — bizso09

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?

No idea where you get C from. It's not anything I said and you haven't provided an argument for it. — Echarmion

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.]

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.] — bizso09

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.

Also, if something cannot be related to you in a world, there would be absolutely no difference between that thing existing or not existing from your perspective.

The reason is because FPP is just a reference point. — bizso09

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.

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. — 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.

Also, if something cannot be related to you in a world, there would be absolutely no difference between that thing existing or not existing from your perspective. — 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?

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? — Echarmion

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"?

Yeah but is it the reference point? — 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 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"? — bizso09

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?

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. — bizso09

Yeah, but does this limitation of your imagination say anything about how the world really is?

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. — bizso09

But you choosing the latter is quite different from you proving the latter is actually the case.

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. — bizso09

Sorry, but I cannot make heads or tails of that.