Solipsism

Pro states: "Imagine you had a rubber and the current accepted view of mainstream science on the way the universe is you erased. What would be in its place, when everything has been erased, space, galaxies and all? This is not pointless as it is leading to explaining a different view on what already exists, especially dimensional space." Imagine you didn't! And you don't! Human imagination is near limitless. The fact that you or I can imagine this, does not make it true and I have to say that it is pointless to me. If you want to open my mind to different possibilities and/or argue there is another way of "knowing" outside of our reasoning based on sense data, then you have to argue for it and not just assert it. I have built my foundations on the Axioms in my opening, and I can build out an epistemology from that which explicitly excludes gaining knowledge by anything other than by senses and reasoning. I do not consider mysticism, magic, supernaturalism, new age thinking, spiritualism, idealism etc as knowledge or deeper truths. They may be a human expression of a deeper desire, but that does not mean they are true. I was under the impression you were arguing in favour of the truth of Idealism/Solipsism. I could easily reverse this imagination topic. I can ask you to imagine that the universe is exactly how I sense it to be (and Realism is true, I exist and thus Solipsism is false from your perspective). Does that in any way validate my position or falsify yours? No unfortunately not. So instead I have provided you with reasons why my position is true, and reasons why your position is false. You have failed to provide me with a valid argument as to why Idealism/Solipsism should even be taken seriously, let alone be true, thus there is no foundation to your baseless assertions. Pro states: "I ask you for an answer to this specific question:What SHOULD exist?" You are asking is an irrelevant question. I have already addressed this: Existence, exists (refer to Axiom 1 in my opening statement). Pro states: "I argue that SHOULD existing means NEEDS existing and therefore DOES exist. SHOULD exist means WOULD exist, I'll defend this idea and I know that having the outlook on existence mainstream science has contradicts this." You aren't arguing something, just merely asserting something. You need to show how you reason to such a conclusion as your premises are demonstrably false. "Should" does not equal "would" does not equal "needs" and none of them equals 'is'. Unless you change the meaning of the English language, in which case the argument is quite literally meaningless. Actually you are wrong about science (at least from the perspective of the some people who identify with Idealism). Idealists frequently refer to the fuzzy physics of the quantum world as evidence that reality is infact a creation of consciousness. To be fair to them they can interpret the experimental physics that way, particularly given experimental data on Leggett inequalities, Leggett-Garg inequalities and Bells inequalities. The violations from these experiments purport to show that elements of Realism do not apply at the quantum level. These arguments are however somewhat of an over-interpretation of the experimental results, and while they rule out some forms of Realism, they certainly do not bury Realism (unless you are tied to a materialist view that the world is infact made of particles like tiny ball bearings from the standard model of particle physics). The net result is that entwining Idealism with these experimental results ends up turning into some kind of pseudo-science sounding Deepak Chopra style woo-woo. But to be fair, it is perhaps the best evidence for Idealism yet. They make a case that needs to be answered and at least they have experimental grounding for their view. I am happy to debate this in more detail because it is fascinating where this leads both Realism and Idealism. Pro states: "A room being on the other side of the wall is just pointless. A planet being away from where you are is just pointless. It should be there when it's required. It should only be when you sense it, not something alien and away from you." A room on the other side of the wall is still extended in space/time and therefore still exists. Whether you like that (or not) and whether it should be there (or not), is irrelevant to the fact that it is there. One does not have to like something for it to be true. Whim-wishing does not make it so.