---
# System prepended metadata

title: On the self-validating nature of idealism
tags: [metaphysics]

---

# On the self-validating nature of idealism

The purpose of this piece is to provide a short, informal argument for why idealism deserves more careful consideration. Briefly: while physicalism is impossible to confirm even *in principle*, idealism suffers from no such limitation. This *intrinsic verifiability* makes it a more fruitful avenue of investigation.

---

Arguments from radical skepticism demonstrate that physicalism cannot be validated *to any degree whatsoever*. For example, consider the hypothesis that this reality is a *simulation* designed to behave precisely as a genuine physical reality would. By its very construction, there exists no evidence that could distinguish this hypothesis from physicalism -- and thus we cannot calculate the *odds* of either one being true. The same problem applies to the hypothesis that all of reality suddenly popped into being, fully formed, in this very moment -- with only the *appearance* of a real past (including false memories). Even *Occam's Razor* cannot help us here, depending as it does on *evidence from a real past* for its very justification -- a plainly circular endeavor.

This [*problem of skepticism*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/) is well known. The commonly accepted solution is that, in lieu of *evidence*, we are free (indeed, *compelled*) to fall back to our own priors -- that is, to choose whichever beliefs we find most *compelling*. And physicalism is frequently taken to be the most natural[^wittgenstein][^carroll].

[^wittgenstein]: Wittgenstein once asked why people used to think the Sun went 'round the Earth. His friend answered that it's because it *looks* that way. Wittgenstein responds: _well what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth turned on its axis?_

    Similarly, why is physicalism considered the "most natural" choice? It is because things *look* that way. Well, what would it look like if *idealism* were true?

[^carroll]: Although a physicist by profession, avowed physicalist Prof. Sean Carroll writes about this problem (and its solution) eloquently in _The Big Picture_:

    > There is no way to distinguish between the scenarios by collecting new data. What we’re left with is our choice of prior credences. ... [I]t’s okay to set our prior credence in radically skeptical scenarios at very low values, and attach higher prior credence to the straightforwardly realistic possibilities.
    
    But what could "straightforwardly realistic" possibly *mean* here? Having just proven that there's no way to determine what is real, the word "realistic" cannot refer to anything other than a _feeling_. Despite this, Prof. Carroll invites others to [adopt it as their religion](https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/poetic-naturalism/):

    > In particular, there is no supernatural world -- no gods, no spirits, no transcendent meanings. [...] Facebook will allow you to declare [this] as your religion.

This proposal, though widely accepted, suffers from a fatal (if hard to detect) circularity: for although *evidence and reasoning* are indeed insufficient to discern the nature of reality, to thereby conclude that it *cannot be discerned* assumes that evidence and reasoning are the only tools *available* to you. In other words, it *presupposes* a metaphysics like physicalism to arrive at a *conclusion* of physicalism. How convenient!

If you *are*, indeed, an individual being at the mercy of a fundamentally external reality, then the tools at your disposal *do* prevent you from confirming your condition with any certainty whatsoever. Put more plainly: even *if* physicalism were true, any *belief* in it would still depend entirely on *pure faith*. But not all metaphysics suffer from this problem.

Consider the hypothesis that *what you are* is the very *ground of reality*, whose very *nature* is consciousness -- taking the *form* of a peculiar dream called _my adventures in physical reality._ In that case, you would *not* have to rely on external evidence -- there being nothing external to you in the first place. Nothing could ultimately prevent you from awakening to yourself as the very source and substance of the whole show[^solipsism], in a very direct and non-inferential way.

[^solipsism]: Note that we are not advocating *solipsism*, where your *personal* self is the entirety of reality. You are the source and substance -- but *so is everybody else*.

It may be hard -- indeed, *impossible*[^impossible] -- to imagine what such an "awakening" could be *like*, but this is a minor obstacle in comparison to the *in-principle impossibility* that inescapably plagues physicalism.

[^impossible]: Anything you can *imagine* falls into the category of *experience,* and experiences are intrinsically fallible. This is what makes it so famously hard to not only communicate, but to even communicate the *importance* of.

For this reason alone, idealism deserves more consideration: if the goal is to discover the *truth*, then it only makes sense to look in places where the truth can actually be *confirmed*. Of course, the hypothesis given above (a form of *idealism*) may not be the *only* confirmable metaphysics. So why should you pursue it over other possibilities?

One answer is that numerous people have told us that they _have_ "woken up," but in the spirit of skepticism we ought not simply believe them.

The remainder of this piece will provide an experiential exercise meant to help the reader gain some intuition for the idealist position. It may serve as a baby step in the direction of *waking up*. Please read it slowly, and perform the exercises with as much sincerity and naivete as you can muster.

---

Look around. While you cannot be sure what is *actually* happening, notice that something certainly *seems* to be happening. Take your time and confirm this. It is critical that you are left with no doubt about it. If you *do* doubt it, simply notice how doubt *seems to be happening*.

Now look carefully at *that-which-seems-to-be-happening*; this wondrous field of experience. If we were forced to answer what it is "made of," we would be hard-pressed to give a meaningful answer. Perhaps the closest we could come is to say that it's made of the *sheer fact of experience itself*. Try and get a taste of this in all five sense fields as well as your mental field (of thoughts, emotions, etc.). Notice how this "sheer fact" is *luminescing* itself to paint your experiential reality.

Now ask yourself: what's *causing* it? Your mind desperately wants to answer in terms of physical reality, so now remind yourself of the peculiar (but rigorous) sense in which you have *no reason* to believe that such a thing even exists. Your mind will rebel, but keep at it.

It may be helpful to reflect on how this practice is simply the most radically honest thing you could possibly do. You are giving your complete attention to what is *unmistakably* here, while withdrawing it from what you only *imagine* to be there. If you want to discover the truth, after all, it is imperative that you avoid all forms of self-deception -- no matter how tempting they may be[^illusionism].

[^illusionism]: Compare this to approaches that begin by asking you to take materialism on faith, and then (unsurprisingly) end up with absurdities like "nothing seems to be happening." If you get lost enough in the maze of your own mind, you may end up believing such stories -- and tragically miss out on the majesty of life.

You are engulfed in something *unspeakably delightful*, practically *begging* you for an explanation or cause. At the same time, there is a precise sense in which you have no reason to believe that causality (as you know it) *even applies* -- or even that you've ever experienced anything *before* this very moment.

If you really nail both halves precisely--the delight and the mystery--there will come a moment when you are suddenly struck dumb by astonishment. Reality will blaze forth as *impossibly marvelous*, and you will wonder how you ever could have missed it. Not the inert "reality" that you'd been until then *imagining*, but the radically alive reality that is *inescapably here*. Your very *definition* of the word "real" will be forever changed as a result.

It is as though you have discovered the solution to this old Tibetan riddle:

> *So close you can't see it*
*So deep you can't fathom it*
*So simple you can't believe it*
*So good you can't accept it*

To which we might humbly add: so obvious you can't communicate it -- even to yourself.

Of course, no experience, no matter how profound, can prove to you the primacy of mind. But if you remain carefully with this discipline of radical honesty, there may come a day when reality unmistakably awakens to itself.


###### tags: `metaphysics`
