Posted: Sep 21, 2021 6:14 am
by Spearthrower
Frozenworld wrote:
Guess again, solipsism is parsimony:

More empty assertions devoid of reason?

Frozenworld wrote:"Solipsism is a form of logical minimalism. Many people are intuitively unconvinced of the nonexistence of the external world from the basic arguments of solipsism, but a solid proof of its existence is not available at present. The central assertion of solipsism rests on the nonexistence of such a proof, and strong solipsism (as opposed to weak solipsism) asserts that no such proof can be made. In this sense, solipsism is logically related to agnosticism in religion: the distinction between believing you do not know, and believing you could not have known."

And as usual, even though you fail completely to provide a single instance of argumentation in your own words, and even though you simply copy and paste what some other dude asserts, you aren't capable even of reading that paragraph of words, let alone processing or understanding it.

Meanwhile, Dave down the pub said you were wrong, so it must be true... amirite?

No mention is made in that text of parsimony, no argument in the copied text discusses the argument for parsimony, no argument in the text justifies the contention of parsimony. It's empty of any content supporting your asinine position which you have repeatedly failed to justify at even the most fundamental level.

It's like you think that just putting words means you're right.

This is a forum for reason and skepticism, and you appear to have no ability to engage in such forms of discourse.

Frozenworld wrote:Literally any google search will prove solipsism to be the most parsimonious explanation.

1) Even if it were true, Google searches don't actually decree reality.
2) That's bullshit - as has been seen many times, you don't understand what you're citing, don't have the foggiest notion of the credibility of sources, and you just ignore anything that doesn't conform to your gibberish.

Frozenworld wrote:And this and the two links you have there already show that to be true:

No. No link ever can 'show it to be true' because it's not a real thing - it's an argument, a position, not a fact. Of course, you have no grasp of this at all.

Frozenworld wrote:

Quoting what some dude says on quora was bad enough once, but to keep doing it and now to pretend that because some dude on quora said X, that X must be true is outright nonsensical. When you think you're helping your case, you're actually exposing how vacuous you need to be to buy into it.

Frozenworld wrote:

That's the link from which you've taken the quote, and as mentioned, it says nothing about parsimony at all. I expect, as with most of the words in this discussion, you don't actually understand what parsimony means.

Frozenworld wrote:So I'm still waiting on how solipsism is proven false, because you can't prove it false.

Your inability to see anything other than the walls of your rectum isn't on anyone else other than you.