Will idealism ever become part of the mainstream?

[Jim Cross]

Physics has no answer for quite a few questions, e.g. the phenomena of entanglement, i.e. instantaneous, apparently acausal interaction at a distance (no matter how great the distance) between particles, which has been confirmed but not explained with any definitive physicalist explication

Certainly physics is an ongoing enterprise as is all science. There are always more questions. However, nonlocality and other QM strangeness are physical. The phenomena in question are measured and predictable, although sometimes just probabilistically.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Jim ... Suffice to say, as usual, our ongoing disconnect continues. And given how long this has been the case, even after so many discussions, and thus seems highly unlikely to get beyond that disconnect with any further discussion, I'm no longer inclined to pursue the hope of doing so.

[Jim Cross]

dana not sure what issue you are having now but there is nothing about nonlocality that proves any ontological position. that is the science of the matter.

see this article by Lee Smolin that discusses nonlocality and quantum gravity

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... -illusion/

[Soul_of_Shu]

Jim ... the issue I'm having is with the statement: "However, nonlocality and other QM strangeness are physical." How does this not presume an ontology of physicalism as a matter of fact from the get go, and thus contradict your saying that "there's nothing about nonlocality that proves any ontological position." In which case, why take as factual any ontological position?

[Brad Walker]

Multiverse might undo atheism because it's a quantifiable reductio ad absurdum. Philosophy of Mind might be consensually irresolvable and most won't have the time or skill to arrive at the optimally aesthetic identity cosmopsychism as a default position.

[Astra052]

Astra ... It's simply not true that the only question left for materialism to answer is the 'problem' of consciousness. Physics has no answer for quite a few questions, e.g. the phenomena of entanglement, i.e. instantaneous, apparently acausal interaction at a distance (no matter how great the distance) between particles, which has been confirmed but not explained with any definitive physicalist explication. Also, as of yet there is still the unexplained gap between QM and General Relativity. And then there's the question of the apparent need for some 'stuff' of so-called dark matter and/or dark energy to account for the vast 'missing' amounts that the equations predict must somehow be factored in. And the list goes on. Again, some scientists are beginning to question that a dogmatic adherence to materialism can provide a way out of these dead ends. So the positing of the primacy of consciousness just opens up another avenue of investigation into such questions, even if there's no guarantee that it will resolve the questions.

I don't know, it just feels like betting against physicalism hasn't been a good bet so far. Even if dark matter, entaglement, or the QM/General Relativity gap haven't been explained it doesn't mean it relates to consciousness. It feels like instead of a "God in the gaps" we're finding "consciousness in the gaps". Just because it isn't explained yet doesn't mean it can't be explained through physicalism. I have a hard time feeling like they won't just discover how consciousness is created by the electricity in our brains our whatever. If I'm really going to believe idealism I need some kind of reproducible evidence that points towards the primarcy of consciousness.

[Astra052]

Multiverse might undo atheism because it's a quantifiable reductio ad absurdum. Philosophy of Mind might be consensually irresolvable and most won't have the time or skill to arrive at the optimally aesthetic identity cosmopsychism as a default position.

Atheism or physicalism? I don't see anything about atheism that requires you to subscribe to multiverse theory. However it seems that one of the best explanations phyiscalism seems to have for QM is multiverse which to me does seem like a flaw. I don't think multiverse theory is really all that sound or based on any less "faith" than one that takes consciousness as primary. It's not something you can prove and the fact that it has become such a mainstream theory tells me that the lack of explanatory power that phyiscalism has (at least for now) is catching up with itself.

[Brad Walker]

Atheism entails the cosmological Multiverse because of cosmic fine-tuning, or accepting that we're just astronomically squared lucky like Goff.

[Astra052]

Atheism entails the cosmological Multiverse because of cosmic fine-tuning, or accepting that we're just astronomically squared lucky like Goff.

Well I don't see how anything "undoes" atheism if they can just take Goff's position. I don't see why it isn't reasonable to say "of course this world was fine tuned for life, we're in it!". I mean, who knows how many big bangs and universes have been created before ours. Maybe instead of a multiverse, our universe is just in a constant state of death and rebirth where every possibility eventually happens, just inside this one. There are plenty of views atheists can take without relying on multiverse. Although I do think the popularity of multiverse theory is showing that physicalism is beginning to find an inability to truly account for things being how they are.

[Brad Walker]

Cosmological Multiverse is the simplest model to account for the incredible number of distinct universes necessary to make this one unsurprising. Cosmologists have probably thought of all possible patterns that can produce infinite worlds. The problem with Multiverse is the number of useless universes, not their production,