Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> Solipsism is just like theism: it's not disprovable, so whether or not
> it is true isn't relevant. You can make all the same predictions if
> you assume that you are the only existent being in the universe,
> experiencing an illusion that behaves /as if/ there were an objective
> reality in which you are just a part as you would make if you assume
> that reality is in fact objective; just as you would draw the same
> conclusions you would if you assumed that God created the universe to
> appear the way it does. It makes no difference at all. One reason
> to reject them is Occam's Razor: since making the assumption that you,
> or God, are somehow special and central isn't necessary, why bother?
By some interpretations of Occam's Razor (eg what follows) solipsism would be the simpler option over having that whole huge universe objectively existing out there. Number of entities would be much smaller, computational cost of simulation-of-whatever-you-experience would be much smaller than simulation-of-objective-universe.