You Are a Co-Creator of Reality.

This shows your inability to think and understand language.

What is that I misunderstood?
FYI, I have been on this philosophical issue for many years.

What is the confusion?
Note I have raised a thread to justify my point.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193716
Show me where I am wrong on this.

It is relevant to me as intersubjectivity requires the participation of other minds.

You kept asking the same question, so I gave you the same truthful replies.

As usual no justifications.

The above view is relatively kindergarten type, i.e. narrow and shallow philosophically, thus an inability to understand philosophy is a more refined level.

Note Philosophical Realists claim their theories represent reality-is but their theories are never realistic.
Anyone can make claims but merely first to claim do not necessary represent what is ultimately true. Philosophically, Philosophical Realists are Transcendental Realists and not empirical realists.

Says the typical kindergartner who things Einstein an idiot.

According to the kindergartner.

A lesson you have yet to learn.

One has to be careful when using objectivity in relation to science. For something to be objective or objectively true means it is absolutely true and therefore can
not be falsified since it can be proven. But science is an inductive discipline which deals in evidence not proof [ apart from null hypotheses or disproof ] Nothing is
ever taken to be absolutely true. Even theories which are the highest form of classification in science are not regarded as being absolutely true only probably true

“Falsifiable” means that there is an experiment that can only fail if the hypothesis is false. It refers to a type of experiment that in combination with logic, dictates that a hypothesis must be true. Most hypotheses are not really falsifiable, but accepted anyway merely out of speculated probability.

Scientific theories and knowledge are at best polished conjectures [Popper] but nevertheless objective. Scientific knowledge is the most credible objective knowledge accepted by the majority.

There are degrees of objectivity and the fact is there is no absolutely absolute knowledge that is totally unconditional.

Scientists and those who use scientific knowledge must understand such knowledge cannot stand by themselves but are always conditional to the Scientific Framework and System.

That is true of science but absolute knowledge does exist in other disciplines that are deductive such as mathematics

For example it is absolutely true that one plus one equals two because that statement can never be disproven

“1 + 1 = 2” is not absolutely absolute nor totally unconditional.

“1 + 1 = 2” is not absolutely absolute but it is relatively absolute and conditioned upon the Mathematical Framework and System. “1 + 1 = 2” is merely a mathematical model and thus true only within the Mathematical Framework and System.

Outside the Mathematical Framework and System it cannot insist it is absolutely true, for example,
1 drop of water + one drop of water = one drop of water [albeit a bigger drop].

There are many other instances of reality where “1 + 1 = 2” is not absolute nor true.

As I had mentioned, as long as we are dealing with empirical related elements, there is no absolute, in this case absolutely-absolute.

It’s not a clue its a mandate of logical necessity.

Agree, I was just being humble.
Personally I am 99.999% certainty [given there is no 100% certainty].

Prismatic567"

Wouldn’t that take more than just a breath? Like some kind of action (not breath)?
How much change can there be with one breath?

In what way CAN we be independent of reality?

Hmmm…I may be wrong here but it seems to me that those who think that they can be are delusional or paranoid schizophrenics.
Perhaps we cannot change reality or our existence as is but we can certainly respond to it in a certain way.

My problem here was with your phrase: cannot be totally independent of the reality.
I may be wrong but how can we be even a little bit independent of reality? I want to see.

You can’t talk about “reality” in the singular, you have to talk about “realities” in the plural. Then you are getting closer to what he means.

The only way for one to be totally independent of reality is merely in thought within a framework of belief [e.g. theism, philosophical realism, objectivism, etc], but note, such a thought is itself a part [interdependent with] of reality.

From the galactic point of view, we have very little say over the layout, the makeup of the cosmos, but from the point of the view of a bacteria, or an atom, we are Gods, within each of us may exist trillions of worlds, hinging on our whims.

I don’t think the bigger Sun, other Stars or Astronomical Systems has more say. The fact is humans has at least has freewill to determine the next line of action.

True, especially an antibiotic addict or a person who put in all sorts of poison into his/her body.

What a strange statement. Is there one that is better accepted by a minority?
But the real weirdness is that scientists tend to be realists whom you call solipsists. They tend to presume a mind independent reality, even if some grant specific gray areas in quantum processes.
IOW their jtb is that there is a real external reality that they perceive and can analyze and come to better models of.
You think this is wrong, yet you contrast science with religion, for example, as if you were ontologically or even epistemologically similar to most of science and most scientists, which you are not.

Scientific knowledge [JTB] is the most credible knowledge but from the philosophical perspective it need to be reinforced with philosophical rationalization.

A Scientist per se relied solely on the strength of the Scientific Method within the Scientific Framework and System and nothing else.
The Scientific Method merely assume an independent reality but this do not imply the Scientific Framework and System is philosophical and based on Philosophical Realism.

Realism [Philosophical] is confined only to Philosophy and not Science.

A scientist who is philosophically oriented may rely on various philosophical theories to reinforce his scientific thinking.
Note some scientists are very religious and theistic and whilst they conform to the Scientific Method for their scientific theory, they rely on God as the ultimate decider of knowledge.

Note there are theistic and religious believers whose claims are agreeable with Science, that is not an issue.
The issue is with those contentious issues that do not agree with Science, e.g. God exists and created the whole Universe, and other supernatural claims.

To counter the contentious issues I have used Science as a leverage but more critically I rely on philosophy [higher reason and wisdom] to keep unjustified claims as what they really are, in this case, God is illusory and an impossibility.

@Prismatic

As individuals, we have little say over big and far things, but lots of say over small and near things.

Note Chaos Theory

The Butterfly Effect
A flap of a butterfly’s wings in China can cause a hurricane in the USA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Who knows what one fart by a person can cause within Earth and the Universe?