People poo-pooh the belief system of solipsism, saying it’s smack-dab within the realm of narcissism. However, solipsism is not exactly the same as narcissism. It’s easy to group the two together, for they share similar constructs, and in many ways could be considered synonymous.
Solipsism is defined according to Wikipedia as: “Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.”
The type of solipsism to which I’m referring doesn’t deny anything outside of itself, it takes a slightly more agnostic viewpoint of an outside reality.
Both solipsism and narcissism feature the person in question at the center of the universe, and strictly defined, they are very similar, except narcissism deals mainly with just the ego, to the flat out exclusion of anything. It relies solely on subjective viewpoints and denies, or is at least suspective of any true objective reality. Non-Metaphysical Solipsists often get a bum rap because of this. Metaphysical solipsists are those who border on a similar pathology as narcissism.
Just as important to note, too, is that solipsism allows for other universes outside of the single universe of the narcissist person. They just cannot prove it. It’s the old subjective/objective reality disconnect. To account for the allowance for other universal views, one must concede the concept of multi-verses (many songs), instead of a single universe (one-song).
This is where we begin our exploration; it’s going to be quite a meandering road, complete with ditches, cliffs, rivers to ford, tunnels, narrow passages and wide open expanses. So buckle up.
Given our present day concept of the universe as being infinite, ask anyone where the exact center of the universe is, down to the picometer. Since the center of the person, their soul, their sentience or their consciousness, usually held to be somewhere within the head, the place where our self-awareness lies, is equidistant in any and every direction from the infinite borders of the universe, logic would dictate that they are at the exact center of the universe at any given moment. Score one for the hardcore solipsists.
With eight billion or so souls on this planet alone, how many universal centers would there be, then? Taking a solipsistic multiverse viewpoint, then, it would suggest an equal amount of universes, give or take. In other words, any truly sentient (self aware) being would be having a subjective experience inside of his own private Idaho. That is the extent of their experience. In actuality, it could be argued that sentience is not the only requirement for a proprietary universe; it could be that every single particle that exists has its own. We’d effectively be dealing with an infinite number of universes within the multiverse.
But universes are so big, you might say, and so far apart. How can we know each other, or even see each other? Wouldn’t we all be alone?
This is where the concepts of narcissism and solipsism really begin to diverge. Especially when you take an overlapping multiverse concept into the equation.
Math whizzes start getting boggle-minded when trying to calculate in excess of 11-dimensions. A noble exercise, but perhaps a bit single-universal-centric. If, on the other hand, and our minds teeter at the thought of trying to calculate, we imagine each individual universe within the Multiverse as a separate dimension, we can easily postulate that individual universes can overlap, occupying the same 3- or 4-dimensional space. There’s not a chalkboard big enough to calculate 8-billion plus universal dimensions, and certainly not one large enough for an infinite one. Can God create a number so high that he cannot count it?
Feeling small yet? We’re just getting started. Like being deep in the desert and looking up at a clear sky at night, pondering our significance, or lack thereof.
Parenthetically, let’s not forget that dimensions, in addition to being mathematical array elements, also are expressed as three-dimensional size. As above, so below. We’ve only concerned with the above part so far. More on that later.
So, let’s assume some things. Our basic assumptions:
- Each sentient being exists within his own dimensional solipsistic universe, one of many, many, many…one could say infinite, if we assume every particle spawns its own private universe.
- All solipsistic universes in the Multiverse can share the same 3-dimensional physical space (as we perceive it), as subsets of the entire Multiverse, the sum total of what constitutes the definitive objective reality.
- The viewpoint of each sentient being can only be subjective, i.e., as viewed from their particular universal center.
Inferences:
- Since each sentient being’s perspective is subjective they will only be able to perceive the elements of their subjective experience
- The infinite number of universes concept is in perfect agreement with the classic definition of a single infinite universe as the field of infinite possibilities. They are not mutually exclusive.
- The focus of each sentient being’s subjective experience is based upon his past experiences (pattern-matched memory), and his particular focus at any given moment
The question is, how can we know and recognize each other? Can we collide and/or interact with the universes of others?
Sure, it happens all the time. How?
Now it starts to get a little weird.
That we’re having shared experience together whilst living in our own individual universal bubbles is not really so mind boggling. Remember the pattern-matching memory and focus part from a few lines back?
The truth is, although it is theoretically possible that we are inherently capable of perceiving all fields within each multiverse, we normally do not, and it can be postulated that it is so vast we cannot absorb all of it. We see, experience, and interact with those elements where our intent is focused, as filtered through our historical programming and cultural and other biases. By default our recognized elements are those close enough to resonate with memories of our historical experience, focus and intent as we are at any given moment.
There are parallels, which are actually clues, as to the verity of these statements in what we call synchronicity (a modern day expression of what used to be termed coincidences). The more we pay attention to them, the more we notice them. A lot of them seem to be recurrent around numbers. One of the biggest currently popular ones observed by many is having an experience of looking at a clock at exactly 11:11 every day, sometimes twice a day. It is more than attributable to us having a perfect Timex subconscious that’s guiding us to look at the precise moment. Another one is seeing one’s “lucky number” everywhere. The daily lottery cleans up on this one. This is not to dismiss the observer in any way, it is only to amplify the point that the more we pay attention to this particular phenomenon, the more frequently it tends to occur.
Now for a brief dip into the paranormal pool, whether it be UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts, or what have you. The more we are focused on any of these, the more it seems to pop up and occupy a significant role in our lives. Its relatability index goes up, thus our notice of such things. To one who only knows of a hammer, any tool is a hammer. What is so interesting about these topics is the allure that keeps us coming back for more. Each of these phenomena seem to always operate at the periphery of our observability, defying any definitive pigeonholing. The end result is it becomes a more interactive exercise, a la Trickster element. More on that later, too; we’ll just concentrate on intent and the attention part for now.
Likewise, back in our “normal” world, if one’s focus is on obtaining money and physical stuff, they’re more likely to end up being surrounded by it. Quanta at its strict physical and meta-physical best. But even that’s about the observation and less about the observer.
However the observer, who can never have the truly objective experience, can obtain clues to his objective nature, if for no other reason than recognizing that these events are pointing out the focus of his subjective intent. By paying close attention to the little clues of his personal synchronicity experience, he gets a gentle reminder of where the focus of his intent lies. It can be thought of as a sort-of feedback mechanism. Subtract out the subjectivity, those things to which the synchronicity points, and you begin to get a better picture of the objective real.
So how do we know to recognize someone we don’t know, but know they’re nearby, how do we view strangers, who have no awareness of us, if we’re each so deeply embedded within our own private universe? When we see a crowd of strangers, that’s exactly what it is. Our experience shows us blank forms of people that we label as strangers…sometimes our facial pattern matching comes into play to see if we recognize anyone. They aren’t complete amorphous blobs, we perceive strangers as people, and if we don’t focus on facial features and hit on one we recognize, we perceive them as strangers. We all know what strangers are, we’ve been imprinted by them since birth. Only after a time does a newborn begin to differentiate a mommy and a daddy; to them, they’re all alien at first. Until we complete the imprinting process and recognize them as separate and important people that we would do well to remember.
How many times have you been standing near someone who you know but didn’t recognize at first, and they were essentially in your brain as a stranger, until some recognition clicks and you go, “Omigosh I didn’t see you standing there. How ARE youuuuu?”
Our universes are occupying the same space, but until the epiphany of recognition they didn’t register as anything other than “stranger.” We weren’t thinking about or focused on them, nor had any expectation of encountering them, or possibly we couldn’t relate to seeing them in that particular setting or circumstance because the location does not coincide with our historical background with them.
We can go into particle physics to explore this, the “why it is so” aspect But you have to take that leap of faith that focus and intent is closely tied to wave-phase relationships in quanta. After all, it’s really not that great of a leap, because any reality is based upon observation.
Say two gentlemen are standing together at a party and observe an attractive woman wearing a red dress. They will be observing the same person, and will come to an agreement, either explicit or tacit, on several common points. The agreement will be based upon many things: our cultural background, our educational level, our syntactical expressiveness (for the explicit), etc. One might say at the same time, “That woman in the red dress is beautiful.” If the observational criteria are the same, they would closely agree on each one of the individual words of the statement:
“That…” — we agree that there is one subject person, and clarifies which one.
“…woman…” — we agree on a gender value judgment, based on a shared definition of what appears feminine (which usually is, but may not always be the case).
“…in…” — we agree on an upcoming descriptive term, suggesting the subject of what she’s wearing.
“…the…” – we agree that she is wearing a single subject article.
“…red…” – we agree that the frequency of the light reflected from her clothing is what we each perceive as the color red. Note that there is not always agreement on this, but it holds true for the majority of people. We each have our own perception of “red” but it correlates to an agreed Angstrom length reflection to which we have learned.
“…dress…” – we agree that the subject article of clothing is cut from and draped a shape and configuration of what we agree comprises a dress.
“…is…” — we agree on her existence, with a value judgement to follow.
“…beautiful.” — we might agree that a culturally biased commonality of physical proportion and symmetry would constitute our agreement of what constitutes beauty. Note that this value judgement is subject to change from culture to culture, and from age to age.
So we’ve been focusing on this lady, have a common contemplation and are in agreement. The intent of one might be appreciation of beauty in general, while the other may be more lecherous in nature. But the agreement is nonetheless there. A shared common experience of possibly two wildly divergent universes.
But not always; there may not be a total agreement. One person may have had a bad experience in the past with someone wearing a red dress, and may not agree with all elements of the statement, because each assertion is inherently subjective. Score another one for the solipsists.
A fairly safe objective reality based upon the observation is that there was another person present as the subject of focus, where value judgmental ideas were exchanged. In fact, it could be said that owing to the focus of the subject conversation, nothing else really existing within the context of the discussion, not the party nor its location. While obviously objectively there and happening, it was not strictly a part of the observation. Too, there was the existence of the lady in red, the subject of the conversation. Probably.
This is a prime example of the quantum physicists’ assertion that observation is what causes the wave collapse that brings something into physical being; prior to observation it was only a wave probability and only had existence potential. Observed from two or more universe center-points, each observation slightly different.
So now you have your answer to the tree falling in the forest question. No. At least not on the surface, because it makes the flawed assumption, in the eyes of the quantum physicists, that the tree exists while unobserved. Objectively it might, but subjectively it does not, which eliminates it from the possibility that it even exists beyond a probabalistic potential.
Any investigator who interviews people for any purpose about any event will get differing perspectives and recalls about the event, sometimes wildly different.
These differences in reporting because of different physical perspectives, but also due to different observational focii driven by memory imprinting past experience and frame of reference and focus. Those observationally reported elements are then collated by the investigator and the consensus of those elements usually ends up being accepted at the objective reality of certain events.
At best it only approximates the truth. Many men have been hanged on less.