Idealism Is More Rational Than Realism

The Principle Of Parsimony If one can explain X without adding something unnecessary to the equation, then this is to be preferred rationally. This is also known as Occam's Razor: "Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected."[1] Now, it doesn't matter what ontology you adopt, you can doubt that the non-mental exists (like material things), but you cannot doubt that the mental exists (it takes the mental to doubt), and you have to believe it is immaterial if you believe in material. You have to believe it is immaterial if you believe in the material world, because you cannot weigh a thought, or split a perception and half like you can with apparently material things like atoms. The mind, and the mental "stuff" that exists (e.i. information) has to be immaterial by its nature. Now, if realism is true, then not only does mental stuff exist, but material stuff exists as well. Thus... Idealism assumes: (i) Mental properties exist Realism assumes (i) Mental properties exist (ii) Material properties exist However, we can posit that anything we may look at (cups, speakers, fields, clouds ect.) is really just made of mind "stuff" (information). This means, that what we view as the material world is really just part of a program in some grand mind if this is true. The reason for this inference to a grander mind from our minds, is that with scenarios conjured up by our minds, we can usually control it with God like powers. For instance, I am flying right now in my mind, and blowing up entire cities just by thinking about it, and anybody else can do this in their mind. However, no matter how hard we try, we cannot control what we view as the outside world at will (I cannot make the moon twice its size, but I can in my mind). The best explanation for this is that what we view as outside objects are really just part of a program run in a grand mind; they are not just purely our percetions. Only he can control the all the things in it at will! Since the Realist has to posit mental properties and material properties, but the Idealist only has to posit mental properties to explain the same things; Idealism adheres to Occam'z Razor more. It assumes less fundamental substances, and is ontologically cleaner. The Introspective Argument Interactions between the immaterial mind and material body cannot occur. To quote philosopher Austin Dacey: "Souls (or minds) are thought of as purely non-physical, they can't be weighed, split in half, heated or cooled, they lack mass, electric charge and so on...but how could they possibly have a cause and effect relationship with bodies that are said to have these, and only these physical properties?" - Austin Dacey[2] A video on the Introspective Argument elaborates on why substance dualism is false: "According to substance dualism, there are two fundamental kinds of substances; matter and mind. However, this view quickly leads to problems regarding the interaction of matter and mind. The internal contradictions of interactionalism demonstrate that two fundamental types of substances cannot interact. If the did, they would interact via a shared property. However, if they share a property, then they are not separate substances at all. Either mind shares a physical property with matter, or matter shares a mental property with mind. As such substance dualism becomes incoherent on close inspection, and must be rejected"[3] To account for this apparent interaction, it seems as if the matter my physical body is composed of (and all matter and fundamentally) must be an illusion, and/or my mind is an illusion. However, as philosopher Descartes famously said: "I think, therefore I am" - Rene Descartes[4] To quote Atheistic Neuroscientist Sam Harris "Consciousness is the one thing in the universe that cannot be an illusion" - Sam Harris Your mind is not doutable, because to doubt it is to presupposes that you are capable of doubt in the first place; which presupposes a mind. However, matter is doutable. Thus, all is mind and mental, and there is no matter. This is because if there is matter and stuff like material atoms independent of perceptions, then this means there are neurons and synapses causing my conscious states or vice versa. However, based on dualism being false (things like neurons and synapses cannot have a causal relationship with consciousness), this is impossible. One has to go out the window, but I know I experience, and this is the basis for all knowledge. Thus, everything is just ideas or mind "stuff". Quantum Mechanics Debunks Realism Quantum Mechanics debunks Realism, which is commonly understood as Naive Realism: "(Naïve Realism) veridical experiential episodes have mind-independent objects and features as constituents."[5] I will cite a couple of experiments. One was posted by PhysicsWorld.Com in an article called "Quantum Physics Says Good-Bye To Reality" in 2007[6]. The experiment from 2007 posted in PhysicsWorld.Com referred to the paper by physicists Simon Groblacher, Tomasz Paterek, Rainer Kaltonbaek, Caslav Brukner, Marek Zukowski, Markus Aspelmeyer, and Anton Zeilenger called "An Experimental Test Of Non-Local Realism". The abstract of the paper is as follows: "Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation... In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories."[7] The results show that non-local realism is inconsistent with experiment, and we already know local realism is false due to violations in bells inequalities: "Modern physics has disproved direct realism: There is no locally realistic description of our world possible." - Sascha Vongehr[8] Another experiment from 2012 (the nail in the coffin for Realism): **Quantum Erasure With Causally Disconnected Choice** By physicists: Xiao-song Ma, Johannes Kofler, Angie Qarry, Nuray Tetik, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Thomas Jennewein, Anton Zeilinger "No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."[9] Quantum physics has vindicated Idealism's predictions, and has stomped all over Realistic interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Because quantum experiments show that Realism is false; Idealism is much more rational. Conclusion Realism violates Occam's Razor, is subject to the interaction problem and its incoherencies, and modern Quantum Mechanics shows that Realism is false, but vindicates Idealism. Since Idealism is consistent with science, and Realism isn't; it is self-evident that Idealism is more rational.The resolution has been established; Con must knock down all 3 of my arguments, and show that I have not succeeded in demonstrating that Idealism is more rational than Realism. I await my opponent's next round, and wish him good luck. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor [2] Video Source [3] Video Source 2 [4] Principles of Philosophy (1644) [5] http://intl-analysis.oxfordjournals.org... [6] http://physicsworld.com... [7] http://arxiv.org... [8] http://www.science20.com... [9] http://arxiv.org... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...