In defense of sollipsm. There IS no objective reality.

Note to all: While it is true that I label myself as a solipsist, that is not the true definition of what I believe. I agree with solipsism that the self is the only thing you can know for sure is real, but I do not agree that the self is the ONLY thing that exists in the physical sense. Perhaps in other levels, the self is the only thing that exists but I do not believe that I am the only thing that exists on this physical level. So in fact, I am not really a solipsist to the heart and I am only just defending this belief for the pleasure of debating. I agree with Con's provided definition of solipsism however I do not agree that the definition of 'Objective' is relevant to my resolution. I argued that there is no 'Objective reality' and this concept brings a whole new definition that is more than just the words 'objective' + 'reality'. 'Objective reality' or what is known as 'Objectivity is as follows: "Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. ..." - http://en.wikipedia.org..., (wikipedia in my experience has always been reliable and accurate. I have never been proven otherwise so I will use it a valid source just as Con has done.) Time for my rebuttals now. Argument #1 First, to reiterate my resolution and say it another way in accordance to the definition above, I argued that there is no objective reality that exists for sure beyond our individual biases, interpretations, feeling, imaginings and beliefs (to throw in an extra one). How can you claim that the definition of 'solipsism' is objective regardless of an observer? Is it not the observer who created the definition to begin with? Before the word even existed in the english language, could you say that the word existed? No you cannot because the word hasn't be created or even defined yet. The only reason it is a fact is because we agree it is a fact. We as humans have agreed what the word 'solipsism' means and its definition. Without us or an observer to agree upon its definition, the word would be meaningless and therefore not objective. A universe without humans and a dictionary full of definitions would mean nothing. The dictionary would only represent ink and paper. Humans are required for the dictionary to have importance or to contain information. And me proving that there isn't an objective reality is only true if you or the vast majority of people agree that it is true. My proof depends on the acceptance of others in order to be a proof at all. Otherwise it is just a jumble and mix of words and phrases. Proof is subjective. Argument #2 I did not argue that solipsism is the truth nor did is this debate about converting anyone, my argument was about the resolution that there is no such thing as objective reality. If I was expected to defend the entire concept of solipsism then I would simply title the debate, 'In defense of solipsism' period. But instead I added, 'There IS no objective reality' because this was my argument and this was what I was going to stand for. I have even stated it in my resolution. Whatever the title of the debate, it is the resolution the instigator truly argues for. Therefore con's argument that there cannot be one being that exists and one being that rules the universe is not related to my resolution since I didn't mention once that there was only one being existing in the universe. And things that people are not aware of cannot be proven to exist for that person. The things you are not aware of are unprovable since you are not even aware they exist. But you are aware of cancer, you are aware of Ovarian and Esophageal cancers and diseases. You can be sure they exist because you are aware of them. And you can agree with experts that it does exist since you can trust the experts. But the point is, is that you will not be even capable of proving the existence of these cancers if you were unaware of them. Much like a computer game, your opponent or enemy does not exist until the computer creates it using binary. Then as the gamer you will be aware of its existence. The game might then later set up a logical timeline to suggest the enemy was 'tracking you' since before its appearance but in actual truth, the enemy did not exist until it was time to exist and 'pop up' from the shadows or buildings. You might be told by some expert that you have been carrying a disease for a long time but until you actually test and prove it to yourself, how can u be sure it’s there 100%. Also the reality you experience is impossible to prove as objective. What is happening to you might not be the same for the other person. You cannot prove 100% that a person is seeing, touching, tasting the same things you do because you cannot become that person and experience things in their perspective. And science is just something everyone agrees is true. It works very well so it must exist regardless of my focus and attention to it. But so does a computer game. The physics in the game can be as real as it wants to be but as soon as the gamer quits the game, the game ceases to exist as a real objective world. This theory is valid and many scientist do not reject this theory. Experiments like the double-slit experiment are what opens up people's minds to the true nature of their reality. How much of what you know is truly what you know? *end of argument 2 rebuttal* (adding this, cause I feel the rebuttal was a bit long) Argument #3 Same rebuttal here as in argument 2. The resolution did not specifically say that only the self exists. It says that without an observer, there is no way of proving that an objective reality exists. Argument #4 I agree with con's provided definition of ’Existing’. You typing your arguments on the computer is only a fact because you agree it is. If you were a machine with not thoughts, could you describe your actions? You physical senses are subjective to your mind. All sensory input is processed in your brain to create the images, to create the sensations you feel. These happen INSIDE of your head. The only way you prove that what your experiencing is real is by comparing experiences with others and seeing similarities. However the similarities you find cannot be proven 100% to be objectively real. Say for instance you experience something and your friend says she/he has experienced something else. Can you now be sure your experience is real? You gauge the realness of a situation by what the mass consensus agrees happened in the situation. However this is just an agreement based on other people's own individual sensory experience. If a situation happens with absolutely no witnesses whatsoever, then how can you prove that the situation happened and that it is empirically true that such and such happened? Again, in order for proof you need mass consensus agreement. Therefore you cannot prove the event to be objectively real or the event being real without any observer present. Argument #5 Interesting argument. However, same rebuttal in argument 3 here. I am not arguing in favour of the entire concept of solipsism, just the resolution I proposed in round 1. Argument #6 Again, my resolution did not mention that everything is a figment of imagination. Just because I argue that there is no objective reality does not conclude that everything therefore is imagination. Also we do not know the extent of imagination and its true nature. At least I don't. Nowhere in my resolution did it say that only the mind exists and therefore reality is caused by imagination. Argument #7 Now this is an argument I can truly rebut. The idea that mathematics proves that there is an objective reality. Pythagoras theory, area of a circle, trigonometry, and mathematics will always work regardless of there being an observer present. However, again, I can give the same rebuttal here as in Argument 1. Can mathematics still have meaning when humans do not exist in reality? Can you still say 1+1 = 2 when there are no humans around to prove so? When there is no consciousness to prove so? How can you be so sure mathematical logic will still exist objectively when there is no consciousness involved? A computer can have an arithmetic game that you can play. It can have all sorts of logic and maths that you can test yourself with. But once the computer is broken, the systemic function of the game ceases to exist. If the universe is destroyed, would mathematics continue to exist? I highly doubt so. It is like Schrödinger’s cat. Put a cat in a box where there is no possible way to observe the cat and all of a sudden can you be so sure it exists? And in the same experiment, make the cat have some probability of dying and when you close the box, you will not be able to tell whether the cat is dead or alive. In quantum terms, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. You cannot prove the cat is alive or dead. Not until you observe it. You cannot prove any mathematical knowledge will exist when there is no observer around. It is impossible to prove an objective reality exists. Humans created the system of mathematics based on the nature and structure of reality. But it solely depends on human’s experience with reality. Without the humans, without the observer, reality becomes just like the box the cat was in. Closed and unable to observe, can anyone actually say with certainty what goes on in the box? Not until a consciousness is present or an observer is present, you cannot prove that an objective reality exists.