Even if, like, I take a solipsistic approach to life, objective reality has a sort of object permanence to it that's more stable than e.g. my dreams. So even if everything is a hallucination, the mechanism for preserving the information is the closest to "real" I can identify.
And from studying the things we call real, we understand physics. And from physics, I see nowhere that necessitates consciousness at a super low level.
Care to cite and explain the specific mechanisms that I'm not aware of that do necessitate it?
I've only read the first couple of chapters, yet, but this book lay out the philosophical problems with physicalism: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0CGNXWTBN
Every functioning human learns relatively early in life that certain experiences they have are simply fake - dreams, at the very least. Many people who suffer from hallucinations can also learn to trust that their own internal experiences are less valid than what others tell them is true.
Just as much, we may one day come to learn that our internal experience of consciousness is an illusion and that reality is we are all p-zombies. Of course, a physical theory of consciousness has to explain why and how we have this false subjective experience, but it's certainly conceivable that this might happen one day.
And how did you come to learn this? Through your consciousness
Everything that you can know or experience is mediated through your consciousness
Anything you believe to be objective truth or reality, you came to believe through consciousness
There is no way for you (or anyone else for that matter), to know if anything really exists outside our own consciousness
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37721284
You might not like it and prefer to focus only on the models and the math
But fundamentally, all of our knowledge, including physics only really exists in our consciousness
You might also not find it useful, but that’s your own personal subjective opinion, not a universal objective truth (same goes for anything I’ve said)
That doesn’t mean you can’t explore anything within that
In fact a lot of eastern philosophical and religious traditions focus exactly on that, how exploring your inner self is a valid and very good way of discovering reality
Not sure why you fixate on “nothing to discuss” or “conversation ending”
Neither the ideas above nor solipsism are dead ends, there’s plenty of exploration to be had within those
Now if you don’t like them or want to dismiss them, you are free to do so, that’s your own personal take, but that’s not an objective absolute truth
But then you actually can't say anything about anything, since you're the only thing that really exists and everything else is a just a figment of your mind.