I think you need to formalize what claims are being made by “solipsism” in your discussion. There are a number of possible interpretations, some more justifiable (and less interesting) than others. The simplest form, that everything you know about the universe is what you’ve perceived, is pretty straightforward. Stronger forms, like denying that anyone else exists because you can’t perceive their conscious experience, only your experience of something that you interpret as their behavior, are less obvious.
I think then you need to define “prove” in any meaningful way. Generally, this is a definition or modeling choice, not a testable prediction, so “true” or “prove” don’t have much utility in the discussion.
Also, beware discussions with pragmatic philosophers—the best argument against a solipsist is a hard punch in the nose and then ask them why they hit themself. It doesn’t add any knowledge to either side, but it does stop the debate.
I think you need to formalize what claims are being made by “solipsism” in your discussion. There are a number of possible interpretations, some more justifiable (and less interesting) than others. The simplest form, that everything you know about the universe is what you’ve perceived, is pretty straightforward. Stronger forms, like denying that anyone else exists because you can’t perceive their conscious experience, only your experience of something that you interpret as their behavior, are less obvious.
I think then you need to define “prove” in any meaningful way. Generally, this is a definition or modeling choice, not a testable prediction, so “true” or “prove” don’t have much utility in the discussion.
Also, beware discussions with pragmatic philosophers—the best argument against a solipsist is a hard punch in the nose and then ask them why they hit themself. It doesn’t add any knowledge to either side, but it does stop the debate.