Idealism Is More Rational Than Realism

The Principle Of ParsimonyMy opponent says I have misused Occam's Razor, but this is self-evidently false. I defined Occam's Razor in the first round, and showed how Idealism adheres to it more than Realism. Con says it is not just about the simplest explanation, but the best explanation. Well, according to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation usually is the best explanation:"The simplest explanation is usually the right one."[1]Claiming that I am misusing Occam's Razor in his view of it, when I am not, ironically, is misusing Occam's Razor. Idealism only says that immaterial mental/conscious properties exist. However, the Realist has to say that not only do mental/ sentient properties exists, but also material properties that exist independent of perceptions and what not. This is a violation of Occam's Razor, and is thus irrational. All of our experiences as conscious beings can be explained by perceptions and ideas, without the need for the material world at all. Thus, positing the material world for no good reason is completely irrational.Let me give an example with a picture: The existence of the material strawberry is assumed from an experience of a strawberry, but it is unnecessary and useless. Here is another example with a picture (only this time with a candle, and not a strawberry): There is no reason to posit an actual material reality to explain our experience of one. This relates to the veil-of-perception problem in philosophy. Since the idea of a material world is not needed to explain our experiences of reality, it is irrational to posit due to Occam's Razor. It is ontologically cleaner as well if everything reduces to mind "stuff" (e.i. information). Positing a material world on top of that is vacuous. Con says:"If we assume the 'reality' is just a part of mind (or ideas in mind) then one should be in control of the 'reality'. However it does not work that way." - ConThe reason the we cannot control this perception of an outside reality, as I already explained, is because this 'reality' is in a larger mind (a deity). Only this larger mind that we are a part of can control it at will by thinking. Since it is more rational just to assume that everything is mind "stuff", then the reason no human can control what we view as 'material' at will, is that it is just part of a larger mind who can control it at will. "Very essence of reality is that we assume material world exists, in every day life and in everything we do." - ConI already showed that that it is an irrational, and unjustified assumption, and is ontologically messy. Why posit material properties, when mental properties suffice?"The distinction between mind and material world, in your mind you can do anything, you can even imagine yourself as a king (or queen) of the planet, but in real world you would be in asylum." - ConIt is all mind "stuff" under the view I am advocating here. The reason we cannot control these things, is that they are part of a larger mind (my view advocates a form of Panentheism where we are part of God's mind, and the universe is just a program running in God's mind). If everything is mental, but there are aspects we have no control over; this infers a larger mind that does have control over it. "And if the 'reality' is the Grand Network of Brains and everything is the part of the program, my answer would be you watched The Matrix to many times and you need to see psychologist." - ConThis is obviously just an Ad Hominem fallacy. Also, I'm not sure the view I am advocating here is a "Grand Network of Brains". Quantum Mechanics Debunks RealismMy opponent claims that the paper "An Experimental Test Of Non-Local Realism" states that Realism would have to be replaced with a counter-intuitive version to be consistent with quantum mechanics, but that wouldn't mean that Realism was falsified. The problem is, in science, when hypothesis are unnecessarily ad hoc; they are rejected in favor of hypothesis in which the hypothesis is not ad hoc."...irrational means such as propaganda, emotion, ad hoc hypotheses"[2]If the Realist has to reformulate their entire view just to get around the results of this experiment; this means the Realist view is now ad hoc, and it still cannot be intuituive relative to its basic features. Therefore, if the experiment doesn't falsify Realism, it at least shows that a Realist hypothesis is now necessarily ad hoc. Thus, Realism is still irrational (I only have to show Realism is irrational, not necessarily false).The huge problem with my opponent's response is that he completely ignores the most important experiment!**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."[3]Anton Zeilinger had this to say about his experiment:"Our work disproves the view that a quantum system might, at a certain point in time, appear definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle. This would require communication faster than light -- which is dramatically at odds with Einstein's theory of relativity." - Anton Zeilinger[4]This experiment shows that for Realism to be true; Special Relativity has to be false. However, Special Relativity is extremely well tested[5], and there is no evidence for Realism. Thus, it is only rational to reject Realism. Not only that, but if it is true that particles exist and have definite positions before measurement, then there would have to be "hidden variables" changing the quantum states before the experimenter makes a choice, with the "hidden variables" always "knowing" what the experimenter was going go choose ahead of time. To posit this would be extremely ad hoc, and there is no evidence for it. Thus, Realism is irrational no matter how you slice this cake. ---"Idealism leads to solipsism (I call it, extreme idealism)..." - ConMany philosophers disagree[6]."Only thesis against it is theism, if you prefer idealism." - ConTheistic Idealism is what I am arguing for. The Introspective ArgumentMy opponent didn't even rebut the interaction problem, and drops this entire argument. He says:"Taste of strawberry is just stream of electrons, through neurons. And it can be explained by Bio-Chemistry." - ConThis can only show electrons and neurons (parts of this immaterial program) produce the taste, but not that they are the taste due to certain metaphysical problems. As philosopher Thomas Nagel points out:"[If] a mental event really is just a physical event in this sense, and nothing else, then the physical event by itself, once its physical properties are properly understood, should likewise be sufficient for the taste of sugar, the feeling of pain, or whatever it is supposed to be identical with. But it doesn't seem to be. It seems conceivable, for any physical event, there should be a physical event without any experience at all. Experience of taste seems to be something extra, contingently related to the brain state - something produces rather than constituted by the brain state. So it cannot be identical to the brain state the way water identical with H2O." - Thomas Nagel[7]All of my arguments still strongly stand unscathed. Sources [1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...[2] http://scientificanarchism.blogspot.ca...[3] http://arxiv.org...[4] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.comparativephilosophy.org...[7] Mind and Cosmos, p. 41