O dear, Yeah, Slyver can be a tough cookie! I first will congratulate you on again diving into this sub-ject despite your PTSD, And second, I will try to take it easy.

This appears to be a semantic question

Allow me to preface this by saying that I see where you are coming from before making this remark, and I value your view.

I am highlighting this because the question becomes: have you knowledge regarding this view of life? If not, what then is the reason for the response, instead of investigating.

I admit, I mentioned " Wralda" on purpose, as I surmised this response might ensue. Also, this is not to pick on you, but to highlight how easy it is to respond before knowledge is obtained. My remembrance may be a bit hazy, but I seem to remember a bible verse from proverbs regarding that particular stuff.

So, no, it is not semantic question as like in God or Allah used interchangeably, since these words mean the same. On a deeper level, it is a primordial question, as both systems of view: OT/NT God vs Wralda ex-ist diverge from the start.

sol-ipse-ism

I fear this has been the perfect scapegoat. True, it is important to be cognizant regarding the opportunity to land at such a point, where existence is only considered from a egotistic point of view, instead of an holistic point of view.

Seeing the other living is the key. Given the nature of our discussion, I would say, we are far removed from that.

it can be challenging to find a solid foundation for knowledge.

I love this one. For a moment I was reminded of ChatGTP3.5 as this AI also loves to use relative positions. This is the nature of human inquiry, to be able to push beyond the boundaries of relativism and see what happens.

So, what is a solid base for knowledge in relation to the human experience in these 3D environments, with a potential to experience other dimensions? I would say, the foundation is always personal.

Religion for instance, is about the religious/spiritual experience of others, who wrote about it. A movement surrounding such an expression starts to gain traction and before you know it, a new religion is born, especially one that covers generations.

So, what is our solid base? Is it not our own experience? And then we share this experience with others, in an exchange of viewpoints.

where individuals begin to doubt the existence of objective reality itself

I should say, difficult to say.
If I were to analyze the word: object and its derivative objective ( coloration) I would consider this word a misnomer for what you were intending to say. There is a reason why the word: thing and object is on the one hand tied together and mixed up on the other. The reason is: a thing is a judicial proceeding where a challenge is laid down. This challenge is literally the ob - iact.

In terms of idiom, we then hope that by a lot of verbiage we can somehow escape the literal and move towards the definite or that which is not finite. If this does not make sense, then you are right. It doesn't. And that is the value of it: to show our choice of words is totally screwed up.

My personal view here is that by the language distortions ( babel) the truth is hard to reach, let alone to be shared. Chaos ensues. And who has ORDER? The one instituting it: ordu ab chao.

Even worse: real or re-al is an adjective to describe a perception of matter. The synonym for it is given as "actual" which, also an adjective again leads to the word: iact: to throw/ move. re, in this case point towards: fitting together, a matter.

When considering the word: ex-sist-ence there is a clear indicator of a matter under discussion that is grown out of "to be"/"to stand" = life.

The word in-di-vidu-al = adjective pertaining to that which cannot be taken apart. A whole unit of being alive and kicking.

The worst part in all of this semantic gibberish is that this sentence you wrote, consists of adjectives: the derivative from the life-unity, while skipping the fact. The mere consideration that others may be conscious about another man or woman existing, being alive, this consensus does not make it. The perception of the one doing the perceiving is what counts. Hence, the perception of being alive, but also the perception of being from the same source.

The rest are derivatives of the one perceiving, thus entering into a process of experience, gaining knowledge. The rest then is a matter of communication (together one-ing) and finally: agreement to further act together based on mutual benefit and free will.

lead to a kind of intellectual isolationism, where people become increasingly disconnected from others and the world around them

Indeed, that is a danger. I am glad you are still overcoming this, by these exchanges on this medium!