Idealism Is More Rational Than Realism

Con defends an appeal to ridicule[1]. This ridicule assumes no serious person would think like I do. That is false: "There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force…We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck[2]So, the father of Quantum Mechanics believed the spoon wasn't there either.Albert Einstein didn't believe in space, time, or matter as well:"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein[3]What about Heisenberg (The Uncertainty Principle)?“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.” - Werner Heisenberg[4]What did John Wheeler (The Wheeler-DeWitt equation) have to say about the world being immaterial and information?“It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom an immaterial source and explanation... that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.” - John Archibald Wheeler[5].Also, what about Neils Bohr (who proved Einstein wrong about Quantum Mechanics)?"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -Neils Bohr[6]I highly doubt that all of these scientific legends need to see a psychologist."I did not mean if you are idealist, then you become solipsist, I meant it as subcategory to Idealism." - ConSolpisism doesn't work because if it was true then I should have more control over everything; this suggests a higher mind under Idealism. Additionally, you can reason that other minds exist due to signs of other self-reflexive information systems within "The Matrix" ;)"You did not answer my question. Can immaterial mind exist without material body? If yes, how?" - ConThe mind can exist without the material body due to the fact that the material body cannot exist (due to the interaction problem, which my opponent never solved, and if he does it is still ad hoc). Therefore, by deduction, the mind has to be able to exist without the material body. Our bodies are just made up of information, and appears material, but it is really not. I am not saying that our minds are not dependent on our bodies. What I am saying that if our minds are dependent on our bodies, our bodies are probably immaterial information, or part of a virtual reality. This is not far-fetched stuff; the universe is better explained if we are in a virtual reality, because it solves many problems with Quantum Gravity. As famous physicist Brian Greene states:"I seem real enough, don't I? Well, yes. But surprising clues are emerging that everything that you and I, and even space itself may actually be a kind of hologram. Everything we see and experience, everything we call our 3D reality, may be a projection of information that is stored on a thin, distant, 2D surface." - Brian Greene[7]This fits right in with my idea that the external world is really just projected program containing information (mind "stuff") inside a Panentheistic deity (what better storage for all this information than some grand mind?). One reason I believe it is more rational to believe our physical reality is virtual/ holographic than not, is that both Loop Quantum Gravity and String theory assume the Holographic Principle. Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory are our best shots so far at unifying Quantum Mechanics with Relativity. It would seem irrational to discount it (also, scientists discovered that reality is "pixilated", which confirms a prediction of the virtual reality idea). Regardless, it is almost certainly true. As Leonard Susskind (the one who defeated Stephen Hawking in their debate about black holes) notes:"If the horizon of de Sitter space is similar to the horizon of a black hole - and mathematically it is; mathematically they are almost identical - then that must mean that everything that is on the inside of the universe must be describable as a hologram, or a kind of 'film' on the surface way out there on the horizon of de Sitter space." - Leonard Susskind[8]All the clues and evidence point to Idealism (everything at bottom being information, with a grand mind as the most rational grounding for this information). This doesn't mean it is necessarily true, just that based on everything we know, it is the most rational to believe. Thus, Realism seems to be not very feasible. "The premises of the Introspective Argument are begging the question and argument from ignorance." - ConI have two responses to this. The first is that I didn't formulate the argument in that particular syllogism, so attacking that is a straw-man. Secondly, my opponent's claims of fallacious argumentation are bare-assertions, as, they are unsupported (he did not explain why the argument as I formulated it is fallacious, or the syllogism he posted). "The problem with idealism is that idealists generalize quantum mechanics to whole reality, by ignoring that quantum mechanics does not work for anything which are bigger than atom." - Con. First of all, even if my quantum mechanical argument specifically fails; all the other ones still stand. Thus, Idealism is not harmed even if Quantum Mechanics is false because there are other reasons besides Quantum Mechanics to think Idealism is more rational. Also, my opponent's argument is wrong. Quantum Mechanics does hold at the macroscopic scale, despite common belief to the contrary due to more recent experiments:"[T]he double-slit experiments have been performed successfully with larger things like atoms or molecules...Quantum entanglement between two aluminum chips big enough to be seen with the naked eye, and putting a small (macro) metal paddle into a quantum superposition...So, the idea that we can escape by postulating the macro-world is separate from the quantum world, doesn't work..."[9]If one watches the video, they will see, if they wish, that all the sources to these claims can be viewed on the screen; and they check out . But to explain my opponent's error, the number of entanglement connections is so large that you can't speak meaningfully of specific entangled correlations. The correlations become increasingly shared and diluted with scale. Therefore, the quantum entanglement is still there at the macroscopic scale; it is just that its effects are so very marginal, as to indistinguishable from locally real. If realism is actually true, then someone probably would have taken the Quantum Randi Challenge already, and won the $1,000,000 prize[11]. Any scientist who says Realism at the macroscale is true hasn't demonstrated it; it is an ad hoc assumption. Also, I don't have to "prove God exists". God's existence is entailed by Idealism because God has to exist in order to account for why I cannot control things with my mind with superhuman powers (this debunks Solipsism), and Idealism is ontologically cleaner (instead of two radically different types of properties, it only posits one). Thus, it is more rational. Remember, I don't have to prove that God exists, or that Idealism is true. Just that Idealism is more rational; I have done that.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Grimoire for the Apprentice WizardBy Oberon Zell-Ravenhear, p.53[3] http://www.brainyquote.com...[4] http://www.integralscience.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.goodreads.com...[7] Video Source (4:21)[8] Video Source (5:02)[9] Video Source 2 (9:25)[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[11] http://www.science20.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...