Philosophical Idealism (Pro) vs. Realism (Con)

1. LinksFirstly, I apologize about links. I copied whole argument from text editor, which may be incompatible with DDO text editor. So, I will post them again.2. Chariot Strikes BackAfter reading the story of Nagasena and Milinda, I came to the conclusion that, Nagasena is full scale anti-realist. That, he does not or would not assign truth value to any claim, theory, idea, and etc. However, his argument against the existence is nothing, but a game of words. Let S be set of parts, where p(i) are parts (i=1,2,...n), S = {p(i) | i=1...n}. And Θ[i=1...n, p(i)] is an operation which defines the chariot, Θ = chariot. The claim that the part of chariot is not chariot is true, because p(i) != Θ (“!=” means “not equal to”). And also set of parts are not chariot, because S != Θ. Also, by asking, whether chariot is something outside of the chariot or not included in the chariot, Nakasena just affirms the Law of Identity, basically it means chariot is chariot, or -(-chariot) = chariot (“-” here stands for “not”).None of these actually defies the equation Θ = chariot, which basically means chariot is an operation Θ[i=1...n, p(i)] (construction, for those who still does not get it) using the parts S = {p(i) | i=1...n}, in predefined way. As seen here Nagasena’s argument against chariot is not an argument. He may be Nagasena, but he is definitely not Buddha.3. Harry Potter and Philosopher’s ClubThere is a difference between appealing to the beliefs of cavemen and astrophysicists. I am not going to explain of argue for epistemology of testimony, here. In few words, most of our beliefs, claims and etc are based on testimony, on certain matters we trust a group of people who are experts of that matter. So when it comes to reality we should do the same. Whom you are gong to trust on matters of universe, a philosopher, or a astrophysicist. 4. False Premise and MisrepresentationI said, “such as, Theistic Idealism,” and used it as an example. I never claimed it was Con’s position. And Con didn’t present his position of Idealism, rather argue around general definition of Idealism. Saying only mind exists, is not an answer, because it begs the question of which mind exists. And categorization of Idealistic claims is not a misrepresentation, actually it is job of Con to do so. If it is a misrepresentation, then Con must provide reasons for it.5. SolipsismOnly I (my mind) exists (3A), is not the most logical possibility. Because my claim only I exist, is equally valid as, Emperor’s claim, that only he exists. The Law of Non-Contradiction states, both two contradictory claims cannot be true. So whose claim is true, or whose mind truly exist? And this claim cannot be applied just to humans, it is equally valid for cats, Martians, and for the pen I hold in my hands. The most rational choice is to abandon such claims. Or you may have a Solipsism Syndrome.And also, if my mental states are only mental states, then why do I suffer, and my definition of suffering cannot be subjective or cannot be treated as subjective, because I being only mind which exists, has the right to define terms, things and etc. (It is absurd, isn’t it?)Con didn’t touch upon 3B (GNB) and 3C (TI), so I am ignoring them for this round.6. Observers and InterpretersIn Physics, specially in Quantum Physics, terms “observer, being observed, observe” doesn’t mean a mind observing things, anything from particle to universe can be observer. As Werner Heisenberg said, “it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being.” Every particle inside the box has already observed the cat, and Wigner’s friend killed the Schrödinger’s cat.And lastly, Copenhagen’s interpretation cannot be used as evidence. Because there are several interpretations and models of universe, such as Many Worlds, Consistent Histories and etc. Each of them is equally valid for Realism as equally valid for Idealism. These interpretations are interpretations of mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics.7. SuggestionsSolipsism SyndromeThe Problem of Other MindsWigner’s FriendLaws of Classical Logic8. Sources and Linkshttp://www.iep.utm.edu...https://www.phy.duke.edu...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://plato.stanford.edu...http://editthis.info...http://io9.gizmodo.com...http://www.informationphilosopher.com...------------Previous Links: 1. http://plato.stanford.edu...2. http://britannica.com...3. http://fragments.consc.net...4. http://commonsenseatheism.com... (survey results, and links)5. http://britannica.com...6. http://philosophyterms.com...7. http://io9.gizmodo.com...