The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
tahir.imanov
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Idealism Is More Rational Than Realism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,027 times Debate No: 43149
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro




What I will Be Arguing



I will be arguing that Idealism is a more rational ontology to adhere to than Realism.


Description of Idealism



"[R]eality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial"
[http://en.wikipedia.org...].


Definition of Realism


"Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc."
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]


---


First round for acceptance (no arguments). Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic forfeit.
tahir.imanov

Con

No argument here.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

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...

tahir.imanov

Con

First of all you are misusing Occam's Razor, it is not just about simplest explanation, but also best explanation. The correct question should be which is the best explanation of "reality", idealism or realism. In simple terms, realism means there are things which exists, and they are neither minds nor ideas in minds.[1]

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. Very essence of reality is that we assume material world exists, in every day life and in everything we do. 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.


And if the "reality" is the Grand Network of Brains and everything is the part of the program, my answer would be you watched "Matrix" to many times and you need to see psychologist. There is no ontological justification for such reasoning.


And I read "An Experimental Test Of Non-Local Realism" where it says "In the experiment, we meansuse previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."[2] It does not disprove Realism, it just shows that we were not looking good enough. And it is also known as there are some rules that work for big objects and also does not work for very small objects, and vice versa. For example, it is known as an object cannot be in two different places at the same time, but this statement does not work in subatomic level.[3][4] Quantum mechanics doesn't just work in the world of atoms and molecules.[3]


Idealism leads to solipsism (I call it, extreme idealism) which is irrational by itself. Only thesis against it is theism, if you prefer idealism.


"Interactions between the immaterial mind and material body cannot occur."

Here I would like to ask some questions. Can immaterial mind exist without material body? If yes, how?
Taste of strawberry is just stream of electrons, through neurons. And it can be explained by Bio-Chemistry.[5][6]

And Happy New Year


[1] - http://bit.ly...
[2] - http://bit.ly...
[3] - http://dailym.ai...
[4] - http://bit.ly...
[5] - http://1.usa.gov/1da7Udv
[6] - http://1.usa.gov/1gncGbT

Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

The Principle Of Parsimony

My 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." - Con

The 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." - Con

I 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." -
Con

It 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." - Con

This 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 Realism

My 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)..." - Con

Many philosophers disagree[6].

"Only thesis against it is theism, if you prefer idealism." -
Con

Theistic Idealism is what I am arguing for.

The Introspective Argument

My 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." - Con

This 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
tahir.imanov

Con

Firstly, I would like to clarify few things.
1. "...my answer would be you watched The Matrix to many times and you need to see psychologist." - by "you" I do not mean Pro per say, but it was a general statement for each person who thinks in that way, and it was ridicule (every idea is open to ridicule). And by "G.N.B." I meant all similar ideas, such as brain in the vat, matrix (spoon does not exist), and etc.
2. "Idealism leads to solipsism (I call it, extreme idealism)..." I did not mean if you are idealist, then you become solipsist, I meant it as subcategory to Idealism.
3. "Theistic Idealism is what I am arguing for,"- Pro. Are you theist? (Just out of curiosity)


You did not answer my question. Can immaterial mind exist without material body? If yes, how? And if immaterial mind cannot exist without material body, therefore immaterial mind is subjected to material body, which is medium (between weak and strong) argument for realism.

The Introspective Argumentt
The premises of the Introspective Argument are begging the question and argument from ignorance.
P1. - Mind exists.
P2. - The properties of the mind are not that which matter can have.
P3. - Substance dualism is false.
C. - Mind is all.

The problem with idealism is that idealists generalize quantum mechanics to whole reality, by ignoring that quantum mechanics does not work for anything which are bigger than atom.

Pro uses Occam's razor and says "Idealism is ontologically cleaner". And only way to defend it is theism. By saying God, Creator, or The Software Developer exists. And my answer would be using only rationality and logic (philosophy also) prove that God exists and secondly prove to me that the God you are talking about made/created the reality in a way you say he did (i.e.. just mental exists). If you cannot, then your argument is (very) weak.



Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Con defends an appeal to ridicule[1]. This ridicule assumes no serious person would think like I do. That is false:

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force…We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck[2]

So, the father of Quantum Mechanics believed the spoon wasn't there either.


Albert Einstein didn't believe in space, time, or matter as well:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein[3]

What about Heisenberg (The Uncertainty Principle)?

“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.” - Werner Heisenberg[4]

What did John Wheeler (The Wheeler-DeWitt equation) have to say about the world being immaterial and information?

“It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom an immaterial source and explanation... that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.” - John Archibald Wheeler[5].

Also, what about Neils Bohr (who proved Einstein wrong about Quantum Mechanics)?

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -Neils Bohr[6]

I highly doubt that all of these scientific legends need to see a psychologist.

"I did not mean if you are idealist, then you become solipsist, I meant it as subcategory to Idealism." - Con

Solpisism doesn't work because if it was true then I should have more control over everything; this suggests a higher mind under Idealism. Additionally, you can reason that other minds exist due to signs of other self-reflexive information systems within "The Matrix" ;)


"You did not answer my question. Can immaterial mind exist without material body? If yes, how?" - Con

The mind can exist without the material body due to the fact that the material body cannot exist (due to the interaction problem, which my opponent never solved, and if he does it is still ad hoc). Therefore, by deduction, the mind has to be able to exist without the material body. Our bodies are just made up of information, and appears material, but it is really not. I am not saying that our minds are not dependent on our bodies. What I am saying that if our minds are dependent on our bodies, our bodies are probably immaterial information, or part of a virtual reality. This is not far-fetched stuff; the universe is better explained if we are in a virtual reality, because it solves many problems with Quantum Gravity. As famous physicist Brian Greene states:

"I seem real enough, don't I? Well, yes. But surprising clues are emerging that everything that you and I, and even space itself may actually be a kind of hologram. Everything we see and experience, everything we call our 3D reality, may be a projection of information that is stored on a thin, distant, 2D surface." - Brian Greene[7]

This fits right in with my idea that the external world is really just projected program containing information (mind "stuff") inside a Panentheistic deity (what better storage for all this information than some grand mind?). One reason I believe it is more rational to believe our physical reality is virtual/ holographic than not, is that both Loop Quantum Gravity and String theory assume the Holographic Principle. Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory are our best shots so far at unifying Quantum Mechanics with Relativity. It would seem irrational to discount it (also, scientists discovered that reality is "pixilated", which confirms a prediction of the virtual reality idea).

Regardless, it is almost certainly true. As Leonard Susskind (the one who defeated Stephen Hawking in their debate about black holes) notes:

"If the horizon of de Sitter space is similar to the horizon of a black hole - and mathematically it is; mathematically they are almost identical - then that must mean that everything that is on the inside of the universe must be describable as a hologram, or a kind of 'film' on the surface way out there on the horizon of de Sitter space." - Leonard Susskind[8]

All the clues and evidence point to Idealism (everything at bottom being information, with a grand mind as the most rational grounding for this information). This doesn't mean it is necessarily true, just that based on everything we know, it is the most rational to believe. Thus, Realism seems to be not very feasible.

"The premises of the Introspective Argument are begging the question and argument from ignorance." - Con

I have two responses to this. The first is that I didn't formulate the argument in that particular syllogism, so attacking that is a straw-man. Secondly, my opponent's claims of fallacious argumentation are bare-assertions, as, they are unsupported (he did not explain why the argument as I formulated it is fallacious, or the syllogism he posted).


"The problem with idealism is that idealists generalize quantum mechanics to whole reality, by ignoring that quantum mechanics does not work for anything which are bigger than atom." - Con.

First of all, even if my quantum mechanical argument specifically fails; all the other ones still stand. Thus, Idealism is not harmed even if Quantum Mechanics is false because there are other reasons besides Quantum Mechanics to think Idealism is more rational. Also, my opponent's argument is wrong. Quantum Mechanics does hold at the macroscopic scale, despite common belief to the contrary due to more recent experiments:


"[T]he double-slit experiments have been performed successfully with larger things like atoms or molecules...Quantum entanglement between two aluminum chips big enough to be seen with the naked eye, and putting a small (macro) metal paddle into a quantum superposition...So, the idea that we can escape by postulating the macro-world is separate from the quantum world, doesn't work..."[9]

If one watches the video, they will see, if they wish, that all the sources to these claims can be viewed on the screen; and they check out . But to explain my opponent's error, the number of entanglement connections is so large that you can't speak meaningfully of specific entangled correlations. The correlations become increasingly shared and diluted with scale. Therefore, the quantum entanglement is still there at the macroscopic scale; it is just that its effects are so very marginal, as to indistinguishable from locally real. If realism is actually true, then someone probably would have taken the Quantum Randi Challenge already, and won the $1,000,000 prize[11]. Any scientist who says Realism at the macroscale is true hasn't demonstrated it; it is an ad hoc assumption.

Also, I don't have to "prove God exists". God's existence is entailed by Idealism because God has to exist in order to account for why I cannot control things with my mind with superhuman powers (this debunks Solipsism), and Idealism is ontologically cleaner (instead of two radically different types of properties, it only posits one). Thus, it is more rational. Remember, I don't have to prove that God exists, or that Idealism is true. Just that Idealism is more rational; I have done that.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Grimoire for the Apprentice WizardBy Oberon Zell-Ravenhear, p.53
[3]
http://www.brainyquote.com...
[4] http://www.integralscience.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.goodreads.com...
[7] Video Source (4:21)
[8] Video Source (5:02)
[9] Video Source 2 (9:25)
[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[11] http://www.science20.com...

tahir.imanov

Con

The doctrine of idealism holds that "whatever can be known to exist, must be in some sense mental."[1] Idealists will argue that an object exists, because, someone perceives it. But what if no one perceives that object, will it continue to exist or will it expire. The relation between material object and mind is that the thought or idea of object is in mind but not the object itself. It is not the external world is in mind, but the thought of external world is in mind. Learning and becoming acquainted with something involves a relation between a mind and something, anything, other than that mind.[1] Idealists will also assume that " It is not the case that it is conceivable for material objects to exist without any mind thinking of them." But it is also wrong. Can material object exist without any mind thinking of them. We can do little experiment, if we kill all minds (human beings and aliens), will universe expire or will it continue to exist. Common sense answer is it will go on, independent from minds. Does Dark Matter exist? Was it existing before it was perceived by us? Or did Pluto existed before it was perceived? In order for mind to perceive something it needs an external object, or it needs a previous experience of an external object. But I can agree on one thing, and that is no physical object can directly be observed. The sight is combination of chemical reactions and stream of electrons, which is initiated by photons.

PS. Quotations from scientists is not proof, history tells us scientists are most time get things wrong (ancient cliché).





[1] - http://bit.ly/1bJF82w
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
bit.ly does not present ads... and I don't get money.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
RFD part 1/2

Pro starts off with three arguments. From Occam"s razor, introspection and quantum mechanics.

Con said Pro misused Occam"s razor. He said the razor helps us determine what the best explanation is. Since, it seems like there is an external world, there probably is. He ignores the introspection argument. He just says something about seeing the matrix would make you crazy. He said one of the experiments cited by Pro doesn"t disprove all non local realist interpretations of QM. He then asks how can interactions happen between the material and immaterial. This seems irrelevant, because Pro said this cannot happen.

Pro showed that Con misunderstood Occam"s razor. The simplest one is the best. He shows Con has an unjustified belief. That there is an external world. Pro pointed out the myopia of Con in regards to quantum mechanics. Pro showed his comment on the introspection argument does nothing, because the perception of the strawberry is contingent. It can conceivably exist without a brain.

Con then asks how can interactions between immaterial and material things can exist. Con asserts that the introspective argument begs the question and is arguing from ignorance. But never demonstrates how. It certainly doesn't seem like it. Con says Pro is generalizing quantum mechanics. He says it only works with atoms.

Pro quotes many famous physicists to debunk Con"s appeal to ridicule. Pro sows the irrelevance in Con"s question. He shows that Con"s rebuttal to the introspection argument are just bare assertions. Pro shows non realism applies to the macroscopic world.

Con ignores everything in his last round and presents a new argument. If no one perceives x, does it exist? This is irrelevant because Pro said idealism implies the existence of God. This means if no human perceives x, it still exists because it"s a mental projection.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
RFD part 2/2

Arguments to Pro. Sources and conduct to Pro too. Sources because he had more reliable sources conduct because Con presented a new argument in the last round and because Con used bit.ly links. These links are shorteners that present ads so the person can get money. Sorry, but don"t use your debates to make money.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I just spoke to Johanan Raatz, and he said this:

"The universe has 10^92 qubits, and the 'hardware' isn't 'hardware' perse its immaterial thoughts/information. As for where we go afterwards I have a video on the soul which deals with the nature of mind and body."

https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
May be this "Deity" spoke to Johanan Raatz. At the end 4 of 5 republican candidates run for presidency because God told them to do so.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Well, you call it a myth, but you certainly haven't demonstrated it. That is for sure...
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
Justifying Trinity by using Idealism is equivalent to Justifying Myth by using Myth. :) I would rather make up my own philosophy or follow Hurufi school.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
*defends it
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"So you accept Deity exists."

It doesn't matter what I accept, what matters is the idea .

"And then what?"

Who knows?

"Why this Deity developed Universe OS?"

Well, the universe could be looked at as his day dream. It is a holographic projection stemming from his mind as the source. So, for God, just thinking a universe is equivalent to the existence of a designed universe.

"Where is the hardware? Are we programs (or sub-programs)?

Well, the universe would just be an informational program running inside God's mind. So, I suppose we would be sub-programs.

"When we die are we being deleted nonreturnable, or are we sent to Recycle Bin (or Trash, I use Ubuntu)?"

Perhaps we will find out when the time comes. This view is compatible with Christianity (in fact, the person who I learned this belief from, Johanan Raatz, is a Christian Idealist, who defends is readily).

"And why do we even debate it, couldn't this Deity just wrote few lines of code, so we could know the truth?"

I do not compute (no pun intended). Could your God just talk in our ears right now and let us know he exists? Who are you to predict what God would do, and what would happen, as such a finite mind?

"And what is the disk storage capacity of Universe in terms of Geopbytes?"

Who knows? Perhaps you should as Johanan Raatz this question, because he knows more about this stuff than I do. Go on his you-tube page. He has a degree in physics and is a philosophy student.
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
So you accept Deity exists. And then what? Why this Deity developed Universe OS? Where is the hardware? Are we programs (or sub-programs)? When we die are we being deleted nonreturnable, or are we sent to Recycle Bin (or Trash, I use Ubuntu)? And why do we even debate it, couldn't this Deity just wrote few lines of code, so we could know the truth? And what is the disk storage capacity of Universe in terms of Geopbytes?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
Rational_Thinker9119tahir.imanovTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Pro, IMO. 1) Con did not suffiiciently rebut Pro's appeal to Occam's Razor. As far as I can tell Con never argued that the assumption of extramental substances isn't a gratuitious one, which is what it would of took to undermine Pro's first argument. 2) Con's introspection argument goes virtually unchallenged; Con attributed a clearly invalid argument to Pro, used a fallacious appeal to ridicule, then accused Pro of begging the question and using an argument from ignorance with no sufficient basis. 3) Pro's appeal to quantum mechanics was not rebutted. Con's attempt to restrict QM to the subatomic world did not go far enough to undermine Pro's argument because Pro showed that it can apply to the macroscopic world.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Rational_Thinker9119tahir.imanovTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments