Quantum Mechanics has debunked Materialism

However, I believe his position is misguided. Relevant Definition Of Materialism Pro asserts:"I will argue that various experimental results from Quantum Mechanics show that physical reality as we experience it is only data that is being experienced by our Consciousness, and the physical reality is, in fact, a very high fidelity simulation. " - ProThis means, that the definition of "materialism" relevant to this debate as described by my opponent is:"The position that entails the negation of the notion that physical reality as we experience it is only data that is being experienced by our Consciousness, and the physical reality is, in fact, a very high fidelity simulation. "The above is essentially how materialism is defined based on the wording of my opponent's introduction to the debate that I accepted, and the resolution itself. Argument In The Form Of A Syllogism Hopefully I am not straw-manning. but I feel like it will be easier to attack my opponent's opening argument if it was presented in the form of a logical syllogism:P1: The external world is either real and non-physical, or the external world is not real and non-physical P2: Quantum experiments demonstrate true conclusions which could not be true if the external world is real and physicalC: The external world is not real and non-physicalThe syllogism is logically valid; the conclusion follows necessarily from the preceding premises. If we take a look at premise 1, it seems like a reasonably true-dichotomy. I do not feel the need to contest it. What I am going to do is contest premise 2 of the syllogism, and show that my opponent has not proven that physicalism is false in light of certain quantum experiments. Premise 2 My opponent presents a lot of useful and intriguing information, however it does not tie in together with the resolution sufficiently. To support premise 2, Pro says:"It's odd enough that they do so when projected en masse, but for an individual electron to interfere with itself, it must, somehow, become two electrons, pass through both slits, interfere with itself, and then collapse back into a single electron. However, this suggestion is literally impossible, as an electron cannot become two electrons (conservation of mass). .. .Such an outcome is simply, literally, physically impossible. " - ProThe problem with the above is the fact that there is no violation of the conservation of energy. It is simply not true that it takes two photons or electrons to, in essence, "cancel each other out". In reality, it truly only takes each one. For example, each photon will act as a wave and interfere with itself to create the interference pattern. This means that the energy of the photon is never really lost, contrary to what my opponent believes. This means that the double slit experiment does not actually cast any serious doubt on physicalism. However, lets say such a scenario does involve two photons or electrons in context, would this still really violate the conservation of energy? I would say, no. This is because energy can be both positive and negative. This means, that as much new energy can be created without violation of any physical laws as long as there is enough negative energy to balance it out. The universe most likely has a total energy of zero[1]. This is because if you added up all the positive energy (motion, matter ect. ) and the negative energy of gravitational attraction (and just simply stored in space), they would cancel each other out. Negative energy has even been experimentally verified between two Casimir plates[2]. Either way you look at it, my opponent has not established the conclusion that double-slit experiments negate physicalism. My opponent goes on to say:"There is NO explanation of which I am familiar that explains how an objectively real physical particle can behave in such a manner. " - ProThis is an appeal to ignorance[3] logical fallacy. Even if we had no other explanation, it would not follow from this that your hypothesis is a fact. Pro said that his burden was to show that, and I quote:"physical reality is, in fact, a very high fidelity simulation. " - ProPro has not shown that it is a fact that the universe is a simulation. "While that was, in fact, the original expected result, why does merely observing which slit cause the change? Under the objective physical reality hypothesis, which is our default, it's once again illogical. " - ProPro has not showed that any logical laws are being violated. His charge of "illogical" is unjustified. There is a difference between something being:(i) Bizarre and counter-intuitive(ii) IllogicalPro is taking something bizarre and counter-intuitive and calling it illogical. There is no warrant for this. He claims that other experiments support his case, but he did not really go into detail or provide any sources in favor of this. ConclusionPro did not show that materialism is false by use of quantum mechanics. He assumed this burden. Thus, the resolution has been negated according to the debate outline. Sources [1] . http://arxiv.org...[2] . http://www.universetoday.com...;[3] . http://www.nizkor.org...;