Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

Certain inequalities (you mention Leggatt-Garg but you might as well add Bell inequalities in as well) reject the implications of realism but are compatible with idealism

the violations of the Leggett-Garg inequality proved that macro objects still have QM implications... Bell's inequality was a method of falsifying the local hidden variable theory concerning entangled particles. if the inequality is violated, then the local hidden variable theory is falsified. it was confirmed that the inequality was in fact violated. thus the spooky action at a distance (AKA quantum entanglement) Einstein proposed was real and it is determined by measurement. so these are to show that matter has no definite state prior to measurement, and rather exist as a wave of potential states. everything is in quantum superposition prior to measurement.

Kochen-specker theorem has the same implications as 1.

the Kochen-specker theorem confirms the outcome of observed reality depends on the measurements made at the time and cannot be predicted prior. what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision of what to measure. this was also confirmed by the non-local delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. no model of realism is compatible with the findings of QM.

4. is identical to denying your own existence

why? is your 'self' equivalent to matter? if your mind exists, then why not your self? mind is really what you refer to as self.

5. simply does not follow

since I haven't presented any arguments for 5, I think it's unfair for you to determine it doesn't follow without any knowledge of how I got to it.

It is fully deterministic and realistic, namely Bohmian Mechanics.  I am not saying that Bohmian mechanics is true, just that it is a valid non-local, hidden variables interpretation

nice try. but non-local hidden variables were also falsified by violations of the Leggett inequality.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news...to-reality

There are other interpretations such as Many Worlds, Information, Qbism

the many worlds interpretation is riddled with numerous problems. it doesn't fit with the Kochen-specker theorem or double slit and delayed choice quantum eraser experiment results. it doesn't explain the measurement problem. it doesn't make sense to say one outcome is more probable than the other if both possibilities are equally real just split into different worlds, which doesn't fit with the born rule. it also has the core basis problem.
quantum information theory would be the interpretation i'm arguing for. I would say it is very compatible with idealism, and it's just about implied.

Both string theory and Quantum Field Theory deny that there are point particles at all (meaning that mechanics do not apply in the sense we understand them and that viewing only through the lens of QM can only lead to an approximation).

both string theory and loop quantum gravity seem to be going in the direction of quantum information theory.

I agree and stated that the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum world.  But to move from the quantum world is inherently uncertain to therefore the macroscopic world (a bridge) is inherently uncertain is a huge leap.

I do acknowledge that there is a difference between macro and quantum objects. with quantum particles, there are set probabilities that determine their behavior in superposition. but these probabilities become smaller as you look at bigger objects, and to the macro level they become pretty much negligible. this is why cars don't just quantum shift into other people's garages. but nonetheless, the implications of the functioning of QM still apply to the macro level.

I think there is also a general tendency in your perspective to make the mistake of assuming ‘the observer’ is a conscious agent.

Rhythm also brought this up, and I addressed it. yes, there are things that aren't a conscious agent that cause collapse. but a conscious agent would count as something that causes collapse. and from an idealistic perspective that all is mind, I don't distinguish collapse by mind from collapse by material interaction (since all are fundamentally mind).

All you know is that you are a mind conscious of your own consciousness.

well... you wouldn't be conscious of just your own consciousness. there is an external world, but it comes from a different mind.

This is inherently absurd as consciousness is, consciousness of something.

so you don't count as 'something'?

It starts by being aware of things outside of itself to recognise that it is conscious in the first place.

why do you need specifically external awareness for consciousness? internal awareness isn't an option?

what is existence without physicality?

what within the definition of 'existence' entails physicality?

Do minds exist in time and within the confines of the natural world?

well, our minds certainly have temporal existence. but I don't think a mind generally necessitates temporality.

what is the difference between your position and the claim that you do not exist?

my position is that matter doesn't exist. but a reference of self is not equivalent to a reference of your body.

When did consciousness arise in evolutionary history?

consciousness was created apart from evolution of the universe. our consciousness was put at a particular point corresponding to a temporal location in the physical universe. the history we observe is matter behaving materialistically because it is being observed. thus the history didn't exist until the first conscious life form was put in it, then all the billions of years of history materialized at once.

I would argue that consciousness is an emergent property of higher functioning structures in the brain, which are dependant on micro brain structure, compounds, molecules, atoms….all the way back to the QM systems.  I would also argue that QM can be understood from a realist perspective and that I am perfectly justified in claiming that I really do exist, in a natural physical realm.

I don't agree for reasons previously stated.

On point 5. You are arguing that the mind behind existence has no reasons for wanting to fool you or deceive you.  But under Idealism this is the same mind that has set us up to live in a ‘fantasy world’ rather than in our ‘true state’.

it's not a fantasy world in the sense it's whatever you want it to be. it has a predetermined function determined by predetermined probabilities. and since this world is a mental construct, it can be referred to as a 'true state.'

Also that this ‘fantasy’ is so persistent and convincing that we can hold to a realist position.  That seems at least mildly capricious to me.

what it convinces you of is irrelevant. you believe realism because of your perspective, that your bed will still be there even when you leave your room. stuff goes on regardless of whether you see it, but it's an assumption to apply that to unobserved matter.

If this god is conscious, omniscient and omnipresent and if consciousness collapse the wave function. No quantum effects can be observed because all wave functions would be collapsed.

certainly a valid point that deserves a serious answer. the answer is God is not observing material interactions apart from our observations. God doesn't care for material events, he only observes us. material interactions are only determined by God to the extent that they fulfil his plan, but the position of certain quantum particles would not be a factor.