We can address the matter of unique and absolute reality similarly.
Suppose that there is any reality at all, which provides us with at least some part of the things that we need to live and continue living. If not, then we are solipsists. If we are not solipsists, then something outside ourself must be real, and above I have proved to my satisfaction that solipsism is inconsistent with itself, and therefore illogical and unreal, even if we prefer to think otherwise.
But if there is any requirement for outside contact, then we cannot be solipsists, and must consider this argument:
Any creature that better adapts itself to comprehend the reality outside itself that provides itself with some portion of its needs, will have an advantage in gaining those resources over other creatures that have not adapted as well as it has. And thus by an evolutionary process, all creatures must adapt to the reality that surrounds them, or they will become extinct. Over many generations this will result in surviving creatures becoming aware of all the parts of reality that have any bearing on their own survival to the best extent that they can be so adapted.
And thus using only the idea that some part of our needs is real, and accepting the truth of natural selection, we must suppose that we have evolved to perceive the universe around us as accurately as any living being can comprehend it. If not, something will come along that will out-evolve us until it takes over the use of all natural resources for its own purposes.
We are that thing; mankind. Because we control resources that we require better than any competing kind of life, we must reasonably assume that this infers that we comprehend the reality of a real universe better than anything else of which we are as yet aware.
And thus, the idea that there are equally real alternative realities, or no reality, or indeed any alternative to one real reality, do not make any sense at all.
A unique reality may sometimes make little sense; but its alternatives make far, far less sense. We can point out the problems of a unique reality, but if we do so, it is only rigorous if we also point out the failings of alternative states of being with equal rigour. The reason that we do not, is that they are actually so unreal and non existent that we have not yet developed the faculties with which to examine their non-existent complexities, because doing so is not relevant to our needs, which are rooted in a unique and real reality.
no subject
Suppose that there is any reality at all, which provides us with at least some part of the things that we need to live and continue living. If not, then we are solipsists. If we are not solipsists, then something outside ourself must be real, and above I have proved to my satisfaction that solipsism is inconsistent with itself, and therefore illogical and unreal, even if we prefer to think otherwise.
But if there is any requirement for outside contact, then we cannot be solipsists, and must consider this argument:
Any creature that better adapts itself to comprehend the reality outside itself that provides itself with some portion of its needs, will have an advantage in gaining those resources over other creatures that have not adapted as well as it has. And thus by an evolutionary process, all creatures must adapt to the reality that surrounds them, or they will become extinct. Over many generations this will result in surviving creatures becoming aware of all the parts of reality that have any bearing on their own survival to the best extent that they can be so adapted.
And thus using only the idea that some part of our needs is real, and accepting the truth of natural selection, we must suppose that we have evolved to perceive the universe around us as accurately as any living being can comprehend it. If not, something will come along that will out-evolve us until it takes over the use of all natural resources for its own purposes.
We are that thing; mankind. Because we control resources that we require better than any competing kind of life, we must reasonably assume that this infers that we comprehend the reality of a real universe better than anything else of which we are as yet aware.
And thus, the idea that there are equally real alternative realities, or no reality, or indeed any alternative to one real reality, do not make any sense at all.
A unique reality may sometimes make little sense; but its alternatives make far, far less sense. We can point out the problems of a unique reality, but if we do so, it is only rigorous if we also point out the failings of alternative states of being with equal rigour. The reason that we do not, is that they are actually so unreal and non existent that we have not yet developed the faculties with which to examine their non-existent complexities, because doing so is not relevant to our needs, which are rooted in a unique and real reality.