Idealism vs Materialism.

Ex nihilo, nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing) but to conflate physical matter with the laws of conservation is obviously false. Matter is subject to the Law of Universal Decay: once in form, it will decay until it has returned to a form of energy. The question is how all energy came about as a result of nothing. This is unverifiable by all accounts of philosophy and science, including idealism. Yet, surely you would take it more probable to believe that the origins of the universe were devised from some form of energy rather than ideas (which always need a physical substrate to occur)? In any case, a mind could not devise physicality without being of or using energy as a form of matter. Similarly, we do not understand how consciousness arises from abiogenesis or why electrons act as they do in the Double-Split experiment. To then conclude an idealistic model of the universe is a non-sequitur. What you have argued is that there are things that we do not understand by the materialist view of nature, not that idealism is true. From Kant, we have understood that our understanding of the world is highly dependent on our perceptions extending into the world. Let me refer to your own definition of idealism as “(2) : a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable.” Yet, each mental state is only possible because of the physical brain and because there is an external world which it can access. A mind without a material world would have nothing to think about. It is dependent on it for information and for relations of intentionality. By looking at my laptop, I know more than a mental state: I know a mental state about an object in front of me. I gain knowledge of the world of objects beyond that of my mind; this likely arises from my experience and habituation around objects rather than my mind referring to some essential Platonic idea. https://plato.stanford.edu... Even the Simulation theory gives way to materialist view of the world. Non-locality does not disprove the materialist position. And, if we live in a simulation where spatiality does not matter because of non-localised particles, it would still depend on the stuff that it is constituted of. Say you are playing a video game, do you argue that the game is not material? Since it is only possible by and through material. Similarly, it is absurd to argue that just because we may not understand other dimensions currently, that they are for some reason not compromised of some form of energy. I think what you are trying to argue is perspectivism and not idealism (that all we can know are our individual human perspectives of the world) which is a completely different position. The world external to us exists of more than just our individual “consciousness of reason”. To suggest that it isn’t, isn’t only an admittance of complete narcissism but deifies the individual. If true, then Neil DeGrasse Tyson is just a form of yourself: he cannot exist outside your mind. That is, unless there is a material world by which objects exist externally to the mind. Once you grant this, then it is only one more step to grant that without the brain your perspective is lost. Hence, the materiality of your brain is required as well. Your senses are a by-product of your material body and not ideas. Ergo, the proposition that “that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena” has not been established for our individual realities are as ultimate as it gets, from which all truth values are derived. To argue that there are things that we cannot currently explain from science, is not an argument for idealism. The diversity of animals led many to believe that the mind of God had formed them from material. When the theory of evolution arose, we discovered that there was a material explanation for their form.