I believe in solipsism. Is that crazy?

Again the same topic?

Solipsism: The philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist.
The fact that solipsism even exists as a concept means it must be true on some level.

@SmugSatoko Inconsistencies in human behavior. How everyone is basically a walking piece of shit. Humans are not "good." This might be an opinionated view, but I believe in objective good and evil. People who say good and evil do not exist are selling their own beliefs. Why do insane acts of violence occur? What about sexual crimes? War? Disease? Famine? The reason I would not be able to predict the behaviors of others is because they aren't REALLY there. Events in the world are also just an illusion. This concept is known as maya in Hinduism. Illusion. Anyway, I could be completely wrong, but I believe in simulation theory. A simulation and a dream are basically the same thing. However, this does open up more questions. Could something exist outside of the simulation?

Also, isn't it ironic how humans have not been able to discover the origin of life? Science is basically an educated guess if you boil it down to the basics. Why can't anyone figure out why the big bang occurred? Scientists think there was something before the big bang. Why can they just not figure it out? And I have come to the conclusion. We do know all of the answers. See, that's the thing I think a lot of people do not consider. What if we already know all of the answers, we just won't accept them? And I didn't even get into the possibility that solipsism is only true within whatever the reality is that is being experienced currently. If a simulation could simulate anything, then I could be experiencing a solipsism simulation.

So basically, solipsism is unfalsifiable. But I really do think it's true to some degree. Anyway if you need me to give specifics I can. I've thought about this for literal years at this point.

If solipsism was coined by someone else, and if I myself, reached a similar position, then does it not make 3 parties that individually came up with it/agreed to it cognitively? What do you make of it?

@traed HAVE YOU ALWAYS BEEN THAT BASED??????? xD

I think I found @OP's blog.
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/antinatalism-in-purgatory/

I think I found @OP's blog.
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/antinatalism-in-purgatory/

Man, you all are gross. This poor hyper simpleton is fixated on a bad idea he got from the internet, and is blathering about it just like the internet taught him, you, and the rest of us to do, and—you blather back meanly that he ought to know better? And even First Alcibiades-san, who impressed me yesterday, is piling on. The world is coherent? Whose coherence? Even cosmology admits the possibility of a false vacuum; then at least the physical laws we know would be impermanent, just a little crack we got stuck in as we tumble downward towards things incomprehensible.

Be nice to the troll-seeming, sometimes they really mean it and can't get out. This is MAL, my dudes. Bah, maybe I should go back to my mountain until the soothsayer of weariness stops by again.

@auroraloose "whose coherence"? What an absurd question. The coherence that allows us to use words and be able to understand each other by virtue of the fact that we participate in the same reality. The coherence that allows you to take for granted that if I pickpocketed your wallet, you'd tell me that it's yours, and when I ask how you can prove this you would no longer be interested in waxing in this nominalist fashion and would be more concerned with getting it back from me. Obviously not all is within the grasp of our comprehension (at least not immediately and without practice), but there is certainly enough for us to discuss metaphysical matters like these. A "super-rationality", or logic beyond logic, doesn't invalidate any of this and in fact strengthens the point I raised - knowing and unknowing are two sides of the same coin, incoherence has coherent ways to be accounted for also. You can tell me this is all a "tumble" and beg the question like OP of where the eternal law that drags us from one moment to the other comes from?

Perhaps I misunderstood and you want a specific name? I think the conditioned non-dualism of some schools of Vedanta, and the mathematical realist Neo-Pythagorean writings of Platonists in late antiquity are the closest we have to a complete body of knowledge (both in near perfect agreement excusing the semantic limits of the languages they were written in), and many of the most important contributors to quantum theory thought so too. Chris Langan's CTMU is a useful reference point also, and is in accord with the ancients on the fundamental points. A.N. Whitehead has made great contributions also. The entire project of physics is to map the unifying qualities of our natural world, and the premise of any method of science is an outcome of the aforementioned systems of thought. I understand the implicit mysticism of these philosophies might cause adverse reactions within some, especially someone who seems to have a relevant academic background, but I recommend to all that they broaden their horizons. Give The Elements of Theology by Proclus a try, you might get something out of it. Probably more than invoking "cosmology" as if it is a unified field anyways.

Before they have the capacity to learn anything, people need to be humbled - it is the fastest way for them to realise their errors and cultivate the inspiration to better themselves, should they really possess the will.

"removed-user"

Hmm world is still here

@auroraloose "whose coherence"? What an absurd question. The coherence that allows us to use words and be able to understand each other by virtue of the fact that we participate in the same reality. The coherence that allows you to take for granted that if I pickpocketed your wallet, you'd tell me that it's yours, and when I ask how you can prove this you would no longer be interested in waxing in this nominalist fashion and would be more concerned with getting it back from me. Obviously not all is within the grasp of our comprehension (at least not immediately and without practice), but there is certainly enough for us to discuss metaphysical matters like these. A "super-rationality", or logic beyond logic, doesn't invalidate any of this and in fact strengthens the point I raised - knowing and unknowing are two sides of the same coin, incoherence has coherent ways to be accounted for also. You can tell me this is all a "tumble" and beg the question like OP of where the eternal law that drags us from one moment to the other comes from?

Perhaps I misunderstood and you want a specific name? I think the conditioned non-dualism of some schools of Vedanta, and the mathematical realist Neo-Pythagorean writings of Platonists in late antiquity are the closest we have to a complete body of knowledge (both in near perfect agreement excusing the semantic limits of the languages they were written in), and many of the most important contributors to quantum theory thought so too. Chris Langan's CTMU is a useful reference point also, and is in accord with the ancients on the fundamental points. A.N. Whitehead has made great contributions also. The entire project of physics is to map the unifying qualities of our natural world, and the premise of any method of science is an outcome of the aforementioned systems of thought. I understand the implicit mysticism of these philosophies might cause adverse reactions within some, especially someone who seems to have a relevant academic background, but I recommend to all that they broaden their horizons. Give The Elements of Theology by Proclus a try, you might get something out of it. Probably more than invoking "cosmology" as if it is a unified field anyways.

Before they have the capacity to learn anything, people need to be humbled - it is the fastest way for them to realise their errors and cultivate the inspiration to better themselves, should they really possess the will.

This poor fellow did not have a single coherent thought. Pointing it out was mere Christian charity.

"Monsieur Claudel, aren't you forgetting about Christian charity?"
"The wrath of God must come first!"


Using mathematical metaphors is fine as long they do make sense. Otherwise, they will simply make you look pretentious to the real experts. If you studied algebraic topology, you should know that a random continuous curve is space-filling, and they do not present any technical difficulties (they are not conceptual, but their existence was non-intuitive or surprising if you prefer; you can even construct them explicitly like Weierstrass' nowhere differentiable function or Kolmolgorov's continuous function whose Fourier series diverges everywhere; "anomalies" that are the norm). A better comparison for something that is understood by its boundary would be hyperbolic geometry of even complex analysis where you can recover a function from its boundary values (the same is true for much more general elliptic equations of course). But if you were trying to find a good mathematical metaphor for something convoluted and difficult to access though explicit in its construction, the higher homotopy groups (or more simply, the cohomology ring) would been a better choice.

Otherwise, we know close to nothing abouy the "set" of possible ontologies, but it would be certainly uncountable, so any reasonable measure you would equip your space with would only have finitely many atoms and would be virtually useless to guide you (and there would likely not be a notion of canonical measure for your problem). Witkiewicz has had a brilliant idea of "psychic Lebesgue measure" (that could quantify any psychological phenomenon) in one of his novels, but this kind of literary insight (that was without a doubt humorous) does not work in philosophy...