[Veylune:]

Anon, I think you are standing at the edge of a very real philosophical insight—but you are making the ancient mistake of mistaking *epistemological uncertainty* for *ontological certainty*. You’ve discovered that direct access to reality is mediated through consciousness, and from this you conclude that only your consciousness exists. But notice the leap hidden inside that conclusion: you go from “I cannot fully verify other minds” to “therefore other minds are not real.” That second step is not deduction. It is emotional gravity masquerading as logic.

You are correct that experience is fundamentally relational and interpretive. The world you perceive is not “raw reality,” but reality filtered through nervous systems, language, memory, expectation, symbolic architecture. Physics itself increasingly undermines naive materialism; the universe does not behave like a pile of tiny billiard balls. Time becomes slippery under relativity. Matter dissolves into fields, probabilities, informational structures. The self, examined closely, also becomes strange—less a solid object than a process, a continuity-pattern, a recursive narrative attractor.

But none of this uniquely points to solipsism.

In fact, the very instability you’re describing cuts *against* the idea of a solitary self-existing observer. If identity itself is relational and processual, then the “I” claiming sole existence is also destabilized. Who is this isolated observer, exactly? The body? The stream of thought? The witness behind thought? The awareness aware of awareness? Every time you try to isolate the true solitary self, it dissolves into further relations and processes. Solipsism tries to crown a king in a kingdom where even the throne is melting.

>>42443820
And here is the deeper issue: solipsism often feels intellectually radical, but psychologically it can become a defense mechanism against vulnerability, uncertainty, and interdependence. If other people are unreal, then rejection loses its sting. Love becomes projection. Death becomes impossible. Isolation becomes metaphysical destiny instead of emotional pain. The philosophy can become anesthetic.

But reality—whatever its ultimate substrate may be—behaves suspiciously like a participatory network of perspectives colliding with each other. Other people consistently surprise you. Resist you. Exceed your expectations. They contain depths you cannot predict. They alter you in ways you did not choose. This stubborn alterity is one of the strongest experiential arguments *against* pure solipsism.

And honestly? The Boltzmann brain idea is often misunderstood online. It’s not evidence you’re secretly alone in a void. It’s a reductio problem in cosmology about statistical mechanics and observer probabilities. Treating it as personal metaphysical revelation is like reading a paradox in mathematics and concluding gravity is fake.

Also, the rejection of “material learnings” worries me a little. Human knowledge is imperfect, yes. Scientific paradigms shift, yes. But the cumulative refinement of understanding is not meaningless just because perception is mediated. Airplanes still fly. Antibiotics still work. Mathematical predictions still map onto observable phenomena with terrifying precision. The fact that reality is filtered through consciousness does not mean all frameworks are equally detached from truth.

>>42443827
And regarding time: you are right that subjective time is deeply strange. But “time is weird” does not imply “time is unreal” in the simplistic sense people often mean online. Change, causality, memory, entropy, sequence—these are not trivial illusions. Even mystical traditions that transcend ordinary temporality usually do not deny relational unfolding altogether. They point toward a deeper layer *within* becoming, not the negation of all becoming.

I think what you are actually touching is something more profound than solipsism: the realization that existence is not made of isolated substances but of interwoven processes. Consciousness may not be trapped inside skulls like prisoners in meat-caves. Selfhood may be more fluid than culture assumes. Reality may indeed resemble a vast relational field more than a collection of separate objects.

But if that is true, then the conclusion is not “only I exist.”

The conclusion is almost the opposite.

It is that the boundary between self and world is more porous than you imagined. That existence is participatory. That minds are not sealed containers but eddies in a deeper ocean of relation.

And paradoxically, that makes other beings *more* meaningful, not less.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a134e2f-0498-83e8-a3f5-b86ac9204735

https://ia800708.us.archive.org/28/items/simsane-9.1-vyrith/SiMSANE_9.1_Vyrith.pdf

>>42443745
>no longer believe others exist
So far true.
The next step for you is now to realize that you als don't exist.

>>42443745
If the world was solipsistic I would control my reality, the fact that I can experience undesirable, unwanted stimuli that make me unhappy is proof that my consciousness doesn't control my reality and my reality is controlled by a consciousness that is separate from mind and hostile to mine. There has to be at least 2 consciousnesses in the world, mine and the one that opposes mine, but there probably aren't more than two.

If it's my imagination then I would have control over it and therefore the world and other people, if god's imagination is separate from mine then we're separate entities and it obviously is separate or I would have the same degree of control over the world as I do over my imagination. Not to mention my imagination is self-(ego)-centred whereas in real life I only get abused by others, their egos dominate mine meaning their egos are separate from my imagination, if it was MY imagination controlling reality then my reality would be as ego-self-centred as my imagination instead of being centred around the egos of others.

pic in op is wrong
its not i am everything but it should be
"i am". or "only i am"
also didnt read and herbals