# Defend Science by Arguing Against Arbitrary Boundaries A good way of defending science against a variety of criticisms, and of understanding the true relationship between reason and reality, is to consider the argument against [Arbitrary Boundaries Beyond Which Human Reason Cannot Access](Arbitrary%20Boundaries%20Beyond%20Which%20Human%20Reason%20Cannot%20Access.md). Let's focus on three main examples: 1. [Solipsism](Solipsism.md): All that we can understand is inside our minds (an arbitrary boundary exists around the mind) 2. [Earth is Enclosed in a Giant Planetarium](Earth%20is%20Enclosed%20in%20a%20Giant%20Planetarium.md): All that we can understand is here on earth (an arbitrary boundary, a planetarium, exists around the earth. We can have no idea what lies outside it - the methods of [Scientific Problem Solving](Science%20is%20Problem%20Solving.md) won't help us[^4]) 3. [Mr Sid's Argument Against Self-Similarity](Self-Similarity.md#Mr%20Sid's%20Argument%20Against%20Self-Similarity): The [Self-Similarity](Self-Similarity.md) that our universe appears to exhibit is not real We will see that [Arbitrary Boundaries Beyond Which Human Reason Cannot Access](Arbitrary%20Boundaries%20Beyond%20Which%20Human%20Reason%20Cannot%20Access.md) are indefensible. ## Argue Against Solipsism: Take it Seriously Before we begin the argument, it is worth pausing to reflect on why [Solipsism](Solipsism.md) provides the most extreme arbitrary boundary to argue against. Solipsism marks the brain as the boundary through which [Reason](Reason.md) and problem solving cannot pass. The brain represents the tightest boundary that we can create, while still leaving a human mind from which to reason[^5]. There is a standard philosophical joke about a professor who gives a lecture in defense of solipsism. So persuasive is the lecture that as soon as it ends, several enthusiastic students hurry forward to shake the professor’s hand. ‘Wonderful. I agreed with every word,’ says one student earnestly. ‘So did I,’ says another. ‘I am very gratified to hear it,’ says the professor. ‘One so seldom has the opportunity to meet fellow solipsists'. Implicit in this joke there is a genuine argument against solipsism. One could put it like this: What, exactly, was the theory that the students in the story were agreeing with? Was it the professor’s theory, that they themselves do not exist because only the professor exists? To believe that, they would first have had to find some way round Descartes’s cogito ergo sum argument. And if they managed that, they would not be solipsists, for the central thesis of solipsism is that the solipsist (the *thinker*, of which the students all are) exists. Or has each student been persuaded of a theory [contradicting](Contradiction.md) the professor’s, the theory that that particular student exists, but the professor and the other students do not? That would indeed make them all solipsists, but none of the students would be agreeing with the theory that the professor was defending (for the professor's theory was that *he was the only person to exist*). Therefore neither of these two possibilities amounts to the students’ having been persuaded by the professor’s defense of solipsism. If they adopt the professor’s opinion, they will not be solipsists, and if they become solipsists, they will have become convinced that the professor is mistaken. This argument is trying to show that solipsism is literally indefensible, because by accepting such a defense (where a defense is provided by *someone else*), one is implicitly contradicting it. It is not a [Logically Consistent](Logical%20Consistency.md) position to hold. But our professor could try and slip out of this argument as follows. it. He could say something like this: ‘I can and do consistently defend solipsism. Not against other people, for there are no other people, but against opposing arguments. These arguments come to my attention through dream people, who behave as if they were thinking beings whose ideas often oppose mine. My lecture and the arguments it contains were not intended to persuade these dream people, but to persuade myself — to help me to clarify my ideas.’ However, if there are sources of ideas that behave [as if](As%20If.md) they were independent of oneself, then they necessarily are independent of oneself. For if I define[^1] 'myself' as the conscious entity that has the thoughts and feelings I am aware of having, then the ‘dream-people’ I seem to interact with are by definition something other than that narrowly defined self, and so I must concede that something other than myself exists. My only other option, if I were a committed solipsist, would be to regard the dream-people as creations of my unconscious mind, and therefore as part of 'myself' in a looser sense. But then I should be forced to concede that 'myself' had a very rich structure, most of which is independent of my conscious self. Within that structure are entities — dream-people — who, despite being mere constituents of the mind of a supposed solipsist, behave exactly as if they were committed anti-solipsists. So I could not call myself wholly a solipsist, for only my narrowly defined self would take that view. Many, apparently most, of the opinions held within my mind as a whole would oppose solipsism. I could study the ‘outer’ region of myself and find that it seems to obey certain laws, the same laws as the dream-textbooks say apply to what they call the physical universe. I would find that there is far more of the outer region than the inner region. Aside from containing more ideas, it is also more complex, more varied, and has more measurable variables, by a literally astronomical factor, than the inner region. Moreover, this outer region is amenable to scientific study, using the methods of Galileo. Because I have now been forced to define that region as part of myself, solipsism no longer has any argument against the validity of such study, which is now defined as no more than a form of introspection. Solipsism allows, indeed assumes, that knowledge of oneself can be obtained through introspection. It cannot declare the entities and processes being studied to be unreal, since the reality of the self is its basic postulate. Thus we see that if we [take solipsism seriously](Take%20Theories%20Seriously%20on%20Their%20Own%20Terms.md) — if we assume that it is true and that all valid explanations must scrupulously conform to it — it self destructs. How exactly does solipsism, taken seriously, differ from its common-sense rival, [Realism](Realism.md)? The difference is based on no more than a [Renaming Scheme](Renaming%20Scheme.md). Solipsism insists on referring to objectively different things (such as external reality and my unconscious mind, or introspection and scientific observation) by the same names. But then it has to reintroduce the distinction through explanations in terms of something like the ‘outer part of myself.’ But no such extra explanations would be necessary without its insistence on an inexplicable renaming scheme. Solipsism must also postulate the existence of an additional class of processes — invisible, inexplicable processes which give the mind the illusion of living in an external reality. The solipsist, who believes that nothing exists other than the contents of one mind, must also believe that that mind is a phenomenon of greater multiplicity than is normally supposed. It contains other-people-like thoughts, planet-like thoughts and laws-of-physics-like thoughts. These thoughts are real. They develop in a complex way (or pretend to), and they have enough autonomy to surprise, disappoint, enlighten or thwart that other class of thoughts which call themselves ‘I.’ Thus the solipsist’s explanation of the world is in terms of interacting thoughts rather than interacting objects. But those thoughts are real, and interact according to the same rules that the realist says govern the interaction of objects. This shows that when [Solipsism](Solipsism.md) is [taken seriously as a theory](Take%20Theories%20Seriously%20on%20Their%20Own%20Terms.md) inevitably leads to [contradictions](Contradiction.md) and undermines its own foundational claims. And if one tries to slip out of the contradictions the theory implies, we find that Solipsism is just [Realism](Realism.md) in disguise, weighted down by unnecessary assumptions - worthless baggage, introduced only to be explained away[^2]. It most definitely does not satisfy the principle of [Occam's Razor](Occam's%20Razor.md). Solipsism is indefensible as a theory (just as [Positivism](Positivism.md) was). As a bonus, can we also argue against [Solipsism on Steroids](Solipsism.md#Solipsism%20on%20Steroids)? Absolutely! Making this theory coherent and defensible is very difficult. The first challenge is that it immediately faces a [Self-Referential](Self-Referential.md) [Contradiction](Contradiction.md) (e.g. [Self-Referential Inconsistency](Self-Referential%20Inconsistency.md)). If we cannot come by knowledge in any way, how could we even form a theory? In effect we are saying "I have a theory. It states that no theories are possible". The contradiction here is clear: if the theory is true, then theories (including itself) cannot exist. But if it cannot exist, it cannot assert that no theories are possible. ## Argue Against Earth is Enclosed in a Giant Planetarium Now lets move to the opposite end of the spectrum and argue against the idea that [Earth is Enclosed in a Giant Planetarium](Earth%20is%20Enclosed%20in%20a%20Giant%20Planetarium.md). Note that our key form of reasoning when dismantling [Solipsism](Solipsism.md) was [taking it seriously](Take%20Theories%20Seriously%20on%20Their%20Own%20Terms.md) and seeing that it lead to [Contradictions](Contradiction.md) that made it indefensible. We will see the same thing occurs when someone argues that the [Earth is Enclosed in a Giant Planetarium](Earth%20is%20Enclosed%20in%20a%20Giant%20Planetarium.md). Here we have an arbitrary boundary around the earth. Inside of it we can learn about the world via [Problem Solving](Problem%20Solving%20Process.md), outside of it we are helpless. Inside of it we are provided with evidence and information about the world, outside of it we know nothing. All we have is what is displayed at this arbitrary boundary that exists somewhere outside of the earths atmosphere. That information, according to the theory, is not real. It is not really coming in from stars across distant galaxies from the corners of our universe. But it does exhibit regularities. We can and do develop explanatory theories about this information, theories that relate in interesting ways to those we develop on earth. So what we have is a boundary that provides us with all sorts of complex structure that can be studied via the methods of [Scientific Problem Solving](Science%20is%20Problem%20Solving.md). This can not be ruled out since the basic postulate of the theory was that the planetarium and its contents were real and accessible. And, just as with [Solipsism](Solipsism.md), taking this theory seriously causes it to self destruct. What actually makes the [Earth is Enclosed in a Giant Planetarium](Earth%20is%20Enclosed%20in%20a%20Giant%20Planetarium.md) theory different from common sense [Realism](Realism.md)? A renaming scheme: inside the planetarium everything is named the same, and outside everything is prefixed with "planetarium-projection". So whereas in realism we have "stars", "planets", "comets", now we have "planetarium-projection stars", "planetarium-projection planets" and "planetarium-projection comets". These objects are the same as their non planetarium-projection counterparts, besides the renaming scheme. So yet again, we have just arrived at [Realism](Realism.md) in disguise! We have introduced a heap assumptive detritus, only to explain it all away. ## Argue Against [Mr Witt](Mr%20Witt.md) This argument is laid out in great detail in [A Proper Counter Argument To Defend Self Similarity](Self-Similarity.md#A%20Proper%20Counter%20Argument). ## What makes a boundary arbitrary? How do we know that a boundary is arbitrary in the first place? Put simply, a boundary is arbitrary because it adds *nothing* to the best existing explanation, and only complicates it. Let's walk through a clarifying example. Consider [Solipsism](Solipsism.md) again: it is roughly saying "all that exists is the mind. Anything outside of the mind can't be shown to exist". So it draws a *boundary* around the mind. Inside of the mind is accessible via introspection. But anything outside of the mind is off limits to reason. At this point a boundary has been defined. However, I have *not* referred to it as arbitrary yet! A claim has simply been made about what exists, along with the [Reach](Reach.md) of [Reason](Reason.md). This claim must now be explained. It is when we try and *explain* the claim that we run into it's arbitrary nature. And as we saw in the earlier arguments, when we try and explain this boundary we see that it yields a *worse* explanation. Notice that we never attacked the claim for being arbitrary outright! We didn't judge it based on our own preexisting criteria and ideas. We judged it [on it's own terms](Take%20Theories%20Seriously%20on%20Their%20Own%20Terms.md). ## Common Component of Counter Arguments What is is that the two above arguments, and all counter arguments against solipsistic variants, have in common? It can really be broken down into two parts: ##### Part 1 Identify that the boundary being drawn is arbitrary. There must be an *explanation* for why [Problem Solving](Problem%20Solving%20Process.md) applies inside the boundary, but not outside. ##### Part 2 Rather than forcing the solipsists to defend their argument[^3] and come up with the above explanation, we point out that *regardless of where they define their arbitrary boundary*, it does not change that fact there is *regularity* and *structure* that lie outside of it, and that regularity *must be explained*! In the case of solipsism the regularity and structure were dream people and dream rocks that were now all part of the solipsists subconscious mind. In the case of the planetarium, the boundary itself was incredibly complex. And, the regularities it exhibits behave exactly [As If](As%20If.md) heliocentrism and no boundary existed at all. So, we see that the planetarium makes use of heliocentrism (or Newtonian gravity, or [General Relativity](General%20Relativity.md)), and then adds ridiculous, unexplained assumptions on top of it. --- Date: 20241025 Links to: [Fabric of Reality](Fabric%20of%20Reality.md) pg 81 [Solipsism](Solipsism.md) Tags: References: * []() [^1]: Love this use of definition by DD. [^2]: An example of this "explaining away" would be the "dream people" that the Solipsist introduces. They effectively say "no external people exist, only dream people in my mind exist, but, they behave '[As If](As%20If.md)' they were external people as you would encounter in [Realism](Realism.md)". So these dream people were introduced, just to effectively be explained away. Calling them dream people was simply baggage. [^3]: This is what makes this argument so beautiful. [^4]: This theory has many similarities (and can be argued against) to [The Inquisition's Theory](Galileo%20vs%20the%20Inquisition.md) [^5]: Visually we can think of starting with a boundary around our solar system. Then bringing it to be around the earth. Then around our local geography. And finally around our brain. The brain represents the tightest boundary that we can create, while still leaving a human mind from which to reason.