I do route for solipsism, it has a certain je ne sais quoi to it. Although, having listened to an ebook on the subject by Alfred Benei, I'm forced to say that if his deduction that even self is artificial and a construct of a consciousness that is the only thing we are sure about, then it is entirely possible to state that nothing can be experienced because the one doing the experiencing is a lie. therefore, whatever exists is unknowable to us because 'we' don't exist. The theory of Nothing would also support this view if its opinionists wouldn't beggar the assumptions and facts. therefore, I'm forced to opine that there is a semblance of universal consciousness somewhere of which we and everything we observe are nothing but constructs of this universal consciousness and the sum total of this consciousness is nothing. And I'm not the first person to hold this opinion. A very prevalent belief in asia is the idea of nirvana (transcendence)... oneness with the universe... which is mistaken by us in the west to mean some sort of yoga enlightenment but which is simply translated to mean, 'a blowing out' like when you snuff out a flame. It is this state, the absence of the plasma that was once the flame that is the true feel of existence. So everything that we assume should exist, including empty space, may not for the above reasons.
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 5:53:40 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:46:58PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Russell, > > > > Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, > each > > viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model > each > > observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they > > confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be > > independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the > other? > > > > O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is > really > > real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other > > observers as being similar to himself? > > > > Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it > seems > > awfully lonely.... > > > > Edgar > > > > I don't think you do get it, because solipsism is not the endpoint of > such a view. > > An example of such a "reflection" is the conservation law of energy, > which turns out to be a consequence of our requirement for physics to > be invariant through time, ie a "reflection" of how we see the > world. See Noether's theorem. > > To argue your case, you would need to come up with some physical > property that is indubitably _not_ a consequence of how we perceive > the world. I don't think you can do that. It is a very high standard > of proof. Consequently, it does not follow that intersubjective > consistency necessarily implies the existence of some external > ontological reality. > > Cheers > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au<javascript:> > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
