Solipsism vs. Ockham

How predictable, for you to laud the derision of the 'merely" existent. :wink:

Is it possible? And if so is that “dreaming in gibberish” some sort of subconcious statement of not understanding what is going on around you? Perhaps gibberish was a bad example since the experience of language could be imagined into gibberish. If solipsism is true then of course that would be the case, however, that’s begging the question.

No, but it is a compelling argument for me, just as personal revelation is a compelling argument for theists, which doesn’t make it true, or proof, only compelling.

Where is the evidence for this “complex-universe-process” beyond what can be described as a perception of an existing universe? Couldn’t we view that process as an extra entity?

Possibly, but is this not an example of turtle stacking?

WaR has the same problem sure, but it has it on a particle by particle basis. There is not one mind that must “know” all these things, but a multitude of particles that act as a collective whole. In terms of parsimony, I think the idea of a discoverable, physical universe as a collection of “strings”, particles, and interactions between them is a simpler solution than a single mind inventing a universe with full languages, full cosmologies, sciences I can’t understand, meaningless art, life threatening illnesses, the lack of hot celebrity fucking (Well, for me that is, the imaginary Brad Pitt seems to be doing rather well.), etc.