On Solipsism vs Skepticism

[Reciprocality]

Let's say you question the possibility of something incoherent.
This necessarily unfolds on the predicate of coherence, as to say that if you arrived at a conclusion of two distinct properties not unfolding with perfect proportions you are giving them their higher order proportions in the awareness of their asymmetry alone.

This is what the mind does, no indeed it is what doing is. Or worse: it is ad infinitum.

The question itself closes the system, there can only unfold a mirage of open-endedness, this mirage takes form of reductionism, dualism, physicalism etc. The traditional Skeptic is entrenched in the biggest mirage of them all.

He gives absolute authority over imagination, such that it poses to him the potential of for example his memories being inadequate for referenced truth.
He even trough his faculties for imagination says that effect Y does not at all need to proceed from a given cause X.
He says "I don't know, for I can easily imagine an effect Z."

But this assumes already that there is anything truthful yet undiscovered trough the imagined, but that is precicely what is absurd, for nothing can be beyond the system that he closes. The Solipsist do not give his pure imagination such a power, it is that simple. He simply do not entertain the imagination as something beyond its own limits.

There is no paradox, only imagined confusion.

And there are no referenced truth.