What is real? How do we know what is real?

[Compassionist]

1. Solipsism - Only your own mind is sure to exist.
Why it's unfalsifiable: Any evidence you receive - from people, books, or even me - could just be a product of your own mind.

Implication: Radical doubt. You can't verify that anything outside your consciousness is real.

2. Idealism - Only minds (or mental states) exist; the material world is a construct.
Why it's unfalsifiable: All physical evidence could be interpreted as patterns of experience or ideas within consciousness.

Implication: Challenges the idea of objective reality; everything may be "mind-stuff."

3. Simulation Theory - We're living in an artificial simulation (e.g., a computer simulation).
Why it's unfalsifiable: Any feature of the simulation could be indistinguishable from "real" physical laws.

Implication: If advanced civilisations can run simulations, and they would, we might be one.

4. Philosophical Zombie Theory - Other beings look conscious but lack inner experience.
Why it's unfalsifiable: You can't access others' inner lives; their behaviour might be perfectly human but devoid of sentience.

Implication: Raises deep questions about empathy, moral consideration, and what we can ever know of others.

5. Panpsychism - Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of all matter.
Why it's unfalsifiable: You can't measure the subjective experience of an atom or rock.

Implication: Consciousness is ubiquitous - a kind of mental "stuff" in everything, not just brains.

6. Pantheism - Everything is God.
Why it's unfalsifiable: It redefines "God" as synonymous with the totality of existence - making it a matter of interpretation, not evidence.

Implication: Spiritual or religious reverence directed toward the universe as a whole.

7. Panentheism - Everything is in God, but God is more than everything.
Why it's unfalsifiable: Like pantheism, it's a metaphysical interpretation that isn't testable. It adds transcendence beyond the universe.

Implication: Allows both immanence (God in all) and transcendence (God beyond all).

8. Dualism - Mind and matter are fundamentally distinct.
Famous proponent: Ren Descartes

Why it's untestable: No clear empirical way to prove the existence of an immaterial mind separate from the brain.

Implication: Suggests consciousness could exist after death.

9. Theism - A personal God created and oversees the universe.
Why it's untestable: Claims about God typically lie beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

Implication: Provides a moral and existential framework for billions, but rests on faith or personal experience.

10. Deism - A non-interventionist creator started the universe but does not interfere.
Why it's untestable: The absence of divine interference is indistinguishable from naturalism.

Implication: God exists but doesn't respond to prayer or intervene in history.

11. Nihilism - There is no inherent meaning, value, or purpose in the universe.
Why it's untestable: Meaning and value are subjective constructs.

Implication: Can lead to despair or radical freedom, depending on interpretation.

12. Eternalism (Block Universe Theory) - Past, present, and future all exist equally.
Why it's untestable: You cannot directly observe future events as already existing.

Implication: Time is an illusion; "now" is just a perspective.

13. Multiverse Theory - There are countless parallel universes.
Why it's (currently) untestable: Other universes are, by definition, beyond our observable horizon.

Implication: Our universe may be just one of infinitely many, each with different laws or histories.

14. Reincarnation - Consciousness is reborn into new lives.
Why it's untestable: No conclusive way to track consciousness or memory between lives.

Implication: May promote ethical behaviour, depending on karmic beliefs.

15. Absolute Idealism - The universe is the expression of a single universal mind.
Why it's untestable: The "absolute" mind cannot be externally observed.

Implication: All existence is interconnected as part of a single consciousness.

16. Nondualism (Advaita Vedanta, Zen, etc.) - There is no fundamental separation between self and universe.
Why it's untestable: It's a shift in consciousness rather than a theory with predictive power.

Implication: Suffering arises from the illusion of separation; enlightenment dissolves this illusion.

17. Cosmic Solipsism - The entire cosmos exists for one observer (e.g., you).
Why it's untestable: Similar to solipsism but extended to cosmic scale.

Implication: Radical personalisation of all reality.

So, what is real? How do we know what is real?

That depends on your epistemological framework - how you define and justify knowledge.

Empiricism says reality is what can be observed and tested.

Rationalism says reality is what can be logically deduced.

Phenomenology says reality is what appears in conscious experience.

Pragmatism says reality is what works - what lets you survive and make decisions.

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #20]

I can see the picture you just posted, so I do not know what the problem might be or how it can be fixed for you.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #20]

I can see the picture you just posted, so I do not know what the problem might be or how it can be fixed for you.

You can see it because it is viewable in your region. I and others who live in another region can't see it because it is not viewable outside your region. I presume you would need to contact the imgur.com and ask them to change the settings so everyone everywhere can view the image.

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #20]

I can see the picture you just posted, so I do not know what the problem might be or how it can be fixed for you.

You can see it because it is viewable in your region. I and others who live in another region can't see it because it is not viewable outside your region. I presume you would need to contact the imgur.com and ask them to change the settings so everyone everywhere can view the image.

Okay thanks for the heads up - I will look into it.

Meantime, how do you and I - with such significantly different views, still construct a bridge re what we do agree on?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to William in post #23]

I am not trying to get anyone to agree with me. My intention is to share my thoughts and read other people's thoughts. “A wise man… proportions his belief to the evidence.” - David Hume. I agree with him. Is your worldview entirely evidence-based? My worldview is entirely evidence-based.

[William]

See if this link works for you.

[Replying to William in post #23]

I am not trying to get anyone to agree with me.

Then this means your position is not to build any bridges...

My intention is to share my thoughts and read other people's thoughts.

Well then, between you and I, your intention has delivered...

“A wise man… proportions his belief to the evidence.” - David Hume. I agree with him.

Is David likewise and agnostic agnostic?

My personal take on use of the word "belief" et al is that if the one using it is really meaning that they "think" then the better wording would be "“A wise man… proportions his thinking to the evidence.”, which in itself is significant to how that man chooses to interpret evidence.

Is your worldview entirely evidence-based? My worldview is entirely evidence-based.

Since both our worldviews are entirely evidence based, what else would explain the differences?

My thoughts at this point is that atheism - as a position - is a waste of my subjective human experience time as I have found way better things to occupy said time.

My thoughts at this point is that agnosticism (for the sake of agnosticism) is a bridgeless column out on its own, detached from either side of the "do we exist within a created thing" debate.

My thoughts at this point is that agnostic gnosis is the best foot forward and has proved itself time and again re "my subjective human experience" - to being the best way forward given the circumstance of our collective reality experience, being said humans.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to William in post #25]

I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic, Compassionist (i.e. I have compassion for all sentient beings), pacifist, vegan.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #25]

I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic, Compassionist (i.e. I have compassion for all sentient beings), pacifist, vegan.

Yes I worked that out. You are an agnostic agnostic, meaning you do not lean either toward atheism or theism.

So the answer must be that while we agree on some points, these are not enough for bridges to be built between our particular positions.