Return to Question

1. Solipsism has fewer essences and therefore it is the most minimal explanation. How to solve this problem? Because the universe tends to a minimum energy state and everything in the universe tends to minimization.

2. It is true that explanatory power is more important than the number of entities?

Solipsism has the fewest entities (only my mind) and therefore it is the most minimal explanation.

Does that make it more likely than the existence of other minds? Because other minds offer billions of minds.

Many entities. Everything in the universe tends to the lowest energy level.

So, should we consider the explanations that have the least number of entities to be true?

Does explanatory power matter more? Is the number of entities crucial or important? What are the solutions to this problem?

Please explain.

The conclusion to the best explanation is the best justification for believing in the existence of other minds because it considers all explanations and selects the best one based on a criterion. In this way, we can reject solipsism and other alternative explanations for other people's behavior.

The best explanation for the behavior of other people is that other people also have mental states and cognitive processes because this explanation is simple, clear and unified.

The existence of other minds offers one single explanation for my behavior and the behavior of other people (we all have mental states and cognitive processes that guide our behavior);

This does not make me special among other people who have behavior similar to mine;

It doesn't give me a special status in the universe;

Solipsism without cause offers two different explanations, separately for my behavior and separately for the behavior of other people.

Solipsism for no reason makes me special among other people.

Solipsism gives me a special status for no reason: the behavior of other people exists solely for me to interact with them and is completely controlled by my mind.

But I have a question:

1. Will the argument be cyclical if we take into account other people's reports of their feelings, ideas, emotions, thoughts, memories, etc.? This is part of our behavior, but if we take into account other people's reports of their mental states, it means that we already believe that other people have mental states. So is this cyclical reasoning?

2. Solipsism has fewer essences and therefore it is the most minimal explanation. How to solve this problem? Because the universe tends to a minimum energy state and everything in the universe tends to minimization.

3. They say that explanatory power is more important than the number of entities. Is it really so? Where is the explanatory power in my criteria?

Is this some separate criterion?

If these issues are not resolved, the argument will be ineffective.

Please explain this and give advice on how to solve these problems?

1. Solipsism has fewer essences and therefore it is the most minimal explanation. How to solve this problem? Because the universe tends to a minimum energy state and everything in the universe tends to minimization.

2. It is true that explanatory power is more important than the number of entities?

The conclusion to the best explanation is the best justification for believing in the existence of other minds because it considers all explanations and selects the best one based on a criterion. In this way, we can reject solipsism and other alternative explanations for other people's behavior.

The best explanation for the behavior of other people is that other people also have mental states and cognitive processes because this explanation is simple, clear and unified.

The existence of other minds offers one single explanation for my behavior and the behavior of other people (we all have mental states and cognitive processes that guide our behavior);

This does not make me special among other people who have behavior similar to mine;

It doesn't give me a special status in the universe;

Solipsism without cause offers two different explanations, separately for my behavior and separately for the behavior of other people.

Solipsism for no reason makes me special among other people.

Solipsism gives me a special status for no reason: the behavior of other people exists solely for me to interact with them and is completely controlled by my mind.

But I have a question:

1. Will the argument be circular if we take into account other people's reports of their feelings, ideas, emotions, thoughts, memories, etc.? It is part of our behavior, but if we take into account other people's reports of their mental states, it means that we already believe that other people have mental states. So is this cyclical reasoning?

2. Solipsism has fewer essences and therefore it is the most minimal explanation. How to solve this problem? Because the universe tends to a minimum energy state and everything in the universe tends to minimization.

3. They say that explanatory power is more important than the number of entities. Is it really so? Where is the explanatory power in my criteria?

Is this some separate criterion?

If these issues are not resolved, the argument will be ineffective.

Please explain this and give advice on how to solve these problems?

The conclusion to the best explanation is the best justification for believing in the existence of other minds because it considers all explanations and selects the best one based on a criterion. In this way, we can reject solipsism and other alternative explanations for other people's behavior.

The best explanation for the behavior of other people is that other people also have mental states and cognitive processes because this explanation is simple, clear and unified.

The existence of other minds offers one single explanation for my behavior and the behavior of other people (we all have mental states and cognitive processes that guide our behavior);

This does not make me special among other people who have behavior similar to mine;

It doesn't give me a special status in the universe;

Solipsism without cause offers two different explanations, separately for my behavior and separately for the behavior of other people.

Solipsism for no reason makes me special among other people.

Solipsism gives me a special status for no reason: the behavior of other people exists solely for me to interact with them and is completely controlled by my mind.

But I have a question:

1. Will the argument be cyclical if we take into account other people's reports of their feelings, ideas, emotions, thoughts, memories, etc.? This is part of our behavior, but if we take into account other people's reports of their mental states, it means that we already believe that other people have mental states. So is this cyclical reasoning?

2. Solipsism has fewer essences and therefore it is the most minimal explanation. How to solve this problem? Because the universe tends to a minimum energy state and everything in the universe tends to minimization.

3. They say that explanatory power is more important than the number of entities. Is it really so? Where is the explanatory power in my criteria?

Is this some separate criterion?

If these issues are not resolved, the argument will be ineffective.

Please explain this and give advice on how to solve these problems?