So, to summarize the QM argument:Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:38 pm In other words, there is no need to read or discuss any of the articles you've linked to because there is nothing of philosophical value in any of BK's arguments relating to QM and metaphysics.
As far as I can tell, BK only has three core arguments for his idealism. One is his interpretation of QM. Another is his psychedelics/transformative experience interpretation. That is more science and another view of his out of step with mainstream science. Finally, there is the convoluted logical argument in Idea of the World which I don't think I have ever seen discussed in this forum. That might make an interesting separate thread. However, if the argument is reduced to that, then likely we are reaching the end of the road where everyone will just agree that you can believe whatever you want but there is no way to prove or even make an intelligent guess about the nature of ultimate reality if such a thing even exists.
- QM by itself is metaphysically inconclusive. As a scientific model apart from any metaphysical assumptions and interpretations, , it is also free from any paradoxes and problems and is very mathematically simple and self-consistent.
- However, materialism has serious compatibility and explanatory problems with QM, as I said in my above post. So far physicists only figured out a few interpretations of QM compatible with materialism, but they are still deeply problematic:
-- Copenhagen has the measurement (WF collapse) problem and the problem of violation of locality and causality in entanglement. The "matter" in Copenhagen interpretation has to be non-local and non-causal to be compatible with QM.
-- Pilot-wave interpretation resolves the measurement problem but still faces the locality and causality problems.
-- Many-world interpretation is free from all of the above problems, but by itself is extremely ugly and makes no sense
The "psychedelic" argument is a very weak one. IMO the strongest argument against materialism is the "hard problem of consciousness". To quote Chalmers (who is not idealist by the way, but still remains open to idealism as a possible ontology)