I'm willing to explain myself, so here we go:
>>>"solipsism: the theory that only the self exists or can be proved to exist". It astounds me that anyone could think that they could prove anything beyond that. I have no idea what sort of proof they might have in mind.>I think we need to define your concept of "exists". (I notice that ontology is the study of existence.) I can't discuss that issue unless I know exactly what you mean.>Platonist: H"They usually see the material world as being caused from Platonist concepts. Mathematical concepts are thus considered as a 'meta-rule' to the Universe (i.e., a rule that exists above or primary to the thing governed by the rule)." D: Here I do not understand your use of the word "caused". How can existence alone cause anything?>H: "I used 'law' and 'constraint' interchangeably in this instance. In other words, if something cannot self-contradict itself then this is a constraint (or law)..." D: You keep using words without defining them as if I can magically deduce their meaning. We have to start somewhere! At least one word must be defined sufficiently carefully that I can be confident that we both understand the same concept behind the word or communications can not exist.>H: "If there is a 'reason' for self-consistency" D: If a statement is not self-consistent then I know of no way to interpret the statement: it is thus by definition totally without meaning.