How to resolve the idealism-materialism dispute ?

[Wise47]

Cosmical modeling can refer to idealism and materialism. In the geocentric model, matter has a significant advantage over mind. The sun next to the Earth in this model has some significance. This model corresponds to materialism and realism with the addition of idealism. And in the heliocentric model, mind has a significant advantage over matter. A big advantage, because the Earth plays a certain, albeit small, role in this model. The Bishop G.Berkeley system, which was a Copernican revolution in philosophy is not fully compatible with the heliocentric model because it does not take into account the Earth orbiting the Sun. The heliocentric model corresponds to idealism with a slight admixture of materialism and realism, where the Sun represents the subject and the Earth the object. The heliocentric model is subordinate to the Galactic Model 2 (other than the model presented in my text New horizons in physics), in which all the stars in the galaxy (subjects) orbit a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Galactic Model 2 corresponds to the idealism and realism, where dominant is cosmical space (black hole) which contains the primeval singularity of the cosmos (singularity inside the black hole).
It seems that the best solution to the materialism-idealism and realism-idealism problem is adoption of all three models, geocentric, heliocentric and galactic model 2 in my new positions of ideomaterialism and ideorealism. In the position of ideomaterialism, I assume a balance between mind and matter. They share reality in half. In the position of ideorealism, I assume a between mental existence and mentally independent existence. They share reality in half.
The eternal dispute between idealism and realism finds a solution in the synthesis of these positions, which is my ideomaterialism and ideorealism.
Microscopic phenomena are mental-material phenomena. They are in half mental processes and therefore depend on the mind of the observer, as suggested by quantum mechanics.
It is worth noting that the concept of matter should be revised. The smallest particles are formed directly from space (a square microgrid of space of the order of 10^-65 m) then combine to form heavier matter. So matter is essentially space.
My theory of ideomaterialism and ideorealism is to some extent related to the concepts of Comte and Mach, who also sought a third way to idealism and materialism (above part of this pargraph is from year 2024).
The structure of the brain and its division into two equal hemispheres may provide some clues to the validity of the proposed concept. The structure of the brain may reflect the hidden structure of reality or impose on us the structure of the theory and the division of 50-50, half idealism and half materialism. However, the structure of the brain did not emerge from nowhere, it concerns its origin, its source, and therefore may reflect the hidden nature of reality (above part of this paragraph is from year 2025).

Gregory Podgorniak, Poland

about the author, My name is Gregory Podgorniak (brn. 01.1977, Szczecinek, West Pomerania, Poland). I am working on field of natural as well as social sciences. During philosophical studies at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan (1996-1999) I was actively act in student scientific organisation, got a scientific scholarship, and one from my articles titled Circulus vitiosus and fourfold petitio principii in the system of Descartes was published in Humanistic Drafts of Publishing House of Humaniora Foundation in Poznan, no. 6, 1998. Unfortunately certain fate events made impossible to me continuing studies to master's and later doctor's degree. Thence I was forced to be content only with a title of bachelor.
Thanks to deep and penetrating researchings I was able to establish indisputably some number of my past incarnations reaching of ancient period, these data are certain, these incarnations are: Auguste Comte (1798-1857) French philosopher and sociologist, Edme Mariotte (1620-1684) French physicist and meteorologist, Aenesidemus (1 st century BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Arcesilaus (315-241 BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Gorgias (485-380 BC) Greek sophist.

email contact: podgorniakgre@gmail.com

the above text comes from work Philosophical research which is available here: Philosophical research
my other works are available here: Research by Gregory Podgorniak

 

[toobfreak]

So basically, at best, you are a self-employed 'scientist' from Poland with a Bachelors in Science who thinks you have been reborn numerous times since the times of Christ.

Ah, ya.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Cosmical modeling can refer to idealism and materialism. In the geocentric model, matter has a significant advantage over mind. The sun next to the Earth in this model has some significance. This model corresponds to materialism and realism with the addition of idealism. And in the heliocentric model, mind has a significant advantage over matter. A big advantage, because the Earth plays a certain, albeit small, role in this model. The Bishop G.Berkeley system, which was a Copernican revolution in philosophy is not fully compatible with the heliocentric model because it does not take into account the Earth orbiting the Sun. The heliocentric model corresponds to idealism with a slight admixture of materialism and realism, where the Sun represents the subject and the Earth the object. The heliocentric model is subordinate to the Galactic Model 2 (other than the model presented in my text New horizons in physics), in which all the stars in the galaxy (subjects) orbit a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Galactic Model 2 corresponds to the idealism and realism, where dominant is cosmical space (black hole) which contains the primeval singularity of the cosmos (singularity inside the black hole).
It seems that the best solution to the materialism-idealism and realism-idealism problem is adoption of all three models, geocentric, heliocentric and galactic model 2 in my new positions of ideomaterialism and ideorealism. In the position of ideomaterialism, I assume a balance between mind and matter. They share reality in half. In the position of ideorealism, I assume a between mental existence and mentally independent existence. They share reality in half.
The eternal dispute between idealism and realism finds a solution in the synthesis of these positions, which is my ideomaterialism and ideorealism.
Microscopic phenomena are mental-material phenomena. They are in half mental processes and therefore depend on the mind of the observer, as suggested by quantum mechanics.
It is worth noting that the concept of matter should be revised. The smallest particles are formed directly from space (a square microgrid of space of the order of 10^-65 m) then combine to form heavier matter. So matter is essentially space.
My theory of ideomaterialism and ideorealism is to some extent related to the concepts of Comte and Mach, who also sought a third way to idealism and materialism (above part of this pargraph is from year 2024).
The structure of the brain and its division into two equal hemispheres may provide some clues to the validity of the proposed concept. The structure of the brain may reflect the hidden structure of reality or impose on us the structure of the theory and the division of 50-50, half idealism and half materialism. However, the structure of the brain did not emerge from nowhere, it concerns its origin, its source, and therefore may reflect the hidden nature of reality (above part of this paragraph is from year 2025).

Gregory Podgorniak, Poland

about the author, My name is Gregory Podgorniak (brn. 01.1977, Szczecinek, West Pomerania, Poland). I am working on field of natural as well as social sciences. During philosophical studies at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan (1996-1999) I was actively act in student scientific organisation, got a scientific scholarship, and one from my articles titled Circulus vitiosus and fourfold petitio principii in the system of Descartes was published in Humanistic Drafts of Publishing House of Humaniora Foundation in Poznan, no. 6, 1998. Unfortunately certain fate events made impossible to me continuing studies to master's and later doctor's degree. Thence I was forced to be content only with a title of bachelor.
Thanks to deep and penetrating researchings I was able to establish indisputably some number of my past incarnations reaching of ancient period, these data are certain, these incarnations are: Auguste Comte (1798-1857) French philosopher and sociologist, Edme Mariotte (1620-1684) French physicist and meteorologist, Aenesidemus (1 st century BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Arcesilaus (315-241 BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Gorgias (485-380 BC) Greek sophist.

email contact: podgorniakgre@gmail.com

the above text comes from work Philosophical research which is available here: Philosophical research
my other works are available here: Research by Gregory Podgorniak

Modern Science Is Still Primitive

There is a fourth spatial dimension where we came from and where the excess matter in a Black Hole goes back to. The Singularity is an impossible concentration of matter.

The original eruption, the actual "Big Bang," (again no impossible Singularity) was a substance that contained light, energy, matter, and space itself. They are interchangeable.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[Wise47]

I have added a part:

"To those who lean more toward idealism, I would reply that the only reasonable possibility would be a system like Berkeley's, with a Father perceiving everything. While the Father, the guardian of the cosmos, does exist, he doesn't have the power to sustain everything in real time; he simply doesn't possess such immense power. Therefore, it remains to assume that matter, understood in one way or another, exists (though it would, in fact, be condensed space). However, an excessive leaning toward materialism doesn't seem justified either. The participation of the mental factor exists, and it simply can't be less than the material factor."

 

[zaangalewa]

How to resolve the idealism-materialism dispute ?​

By dying and waking up in a new body. Or by separating physics and mathematics and awakening in a heaven full of music (Mathematics is music! Music is math!) or the hell of an unimaginable universe without any mathematics and logic so we can say nothing and think nothing what makes any sense. Sometimes I think that hell has many more prophets on earth than heaven does.

By the way: Was the universe sung into existence?

 

[MarathonMike]

By dying and waking up in a new body. Or by separating physics and mathematics and awakening in a heaven full of music (Mathematics is music! Music is math!) or the hell of an unimaginable universe without any mathematics and logic so we can say nothing and think nothing what makes any sense. Sometimes I think that hell has many more prophets on earth than heaven does.

By the way: Was the universe sung into existence?

Always dangerous to do drugs and then post.

 

[Wise47]

I currently present a more idealistic position than the one presented in first post, below is the new version of the text

Cosmical modeling can refer to idealism and materialism. In the geocentric model, matter has a significant advantage over mind. The sun next to the Earth in this model has some significance. This model corresponds to materialism and realism with the addition of idealism. And in the heliocentric model, mind has a significant advantage over matter. A big advantage, because the Earth plays a certain, albeit small, role in this model. The Bishop G.Berkeley system, which was a Copernican revolution in philosophy and the greatest philosophical system of all times and Berkeley can be considered the greatest philosopher in history, is not fully compatible with the heliocentric model because it does not take into account the Earth orbiting the Sun. The heliocentric model corresponds to idealism with a slight admixture of materialism and realism, where the Sun represents the subject and the Earth the object. The heliocentric model is subordinate to the Galactic Model 2 (other than the model presented in my text New horizons in physics), in which all the stars in the galaxy (subjects) orbit a supermassive black hole and accreation disc at the center of the galaxy. Galactic Model 2 corresponds to the idealism, where dominant is God the Father (accretion disc) and cosmical space (black hole) with the primeval star which was beginning of the cosmos (singularity inside the black hole).
It seems that the best solution to the materialism-idealism and realism-idealism problem is adoption of heliocentric model and galactic model 2 in my new positions of ideomaterialism and ideorealism. In the position of ideomaterialism, I assume a great advantage of mind over matter. There is only a small amount of matter (in a ratio of 95 percent mind and 5 percent matter). In the position of ideorealism, I assume a great advantage of mental existence over mentally independent existence. There is only a small participation of mentally independent existence.
The simulation concept assumes that God the Father creates a simulation of the entire cosmos and cosmoses, which can be confirmed by the appearance of a square microgrid of space that looks like a grid of computer representations of objects from the 1980s. The processor that creates and forms the microgrid would be God the Father. It is a computer model to some extent.
The eternal dispute between idealism and realism finds a solution in the synthesis of these positions, which is my ideomaterialism and ideorealism.
Microscopic phenomena are mental-material phenomena. But mind has a great advantage over matter in them. They are in big degree mental processes and therefore depend on the mind of the observer, as suggested by quantum mechanics.
It is worth noting that the concept of matter should be revised. The smallest particles are formed directly from space (a square microgrid of space of the order of 10^-80 m) then combine to form heavier matter. So matter is essentially space.
The fundamental difference between my system and Bishop G. Brekeley's system - is the existence of matter. Although there is only a small amount of it. The second difference between these systems is, in my system, the existence of particles. Although they are largely mental particles with a small addition of a material nature which however can be important. The third difference is the starting point of both systems. In Berkeley's case these are impressions systems, in my case this is a square microgrid of space that looks like a mental simulation. The fourth difference is that God the Father in some degree calculates the forms that the microgrid takes.
In my theory, one could speak of a combination of two concepts. The theory of the world as a simulation in the mind of God (the simulation theory, compare the shape of the microgrid of space which looks like the grids of computer simulations from the 1980s) and the theory of the world as an extension of God's body (the God's body theory). Probably the best solution is to combine these two theories, in some proportion, with great advantage of simulation concept. There is a possibility that God creates a hologram of the cosmos from a flat microgrid, from a plane.
It's worth noting that idealiths (see paragraph 3), as the third component of material structures, primarily living ones, exist outside spacetime (actually, according to my new theory, outside spacetime-matter) and beyond simulation. This means that these structures are characterized by a certain autonomy; perhaps we're dealing with 50 percent simulation and 50 percent autonomy.

Gregory Podgorniak, Poland

 

[Wise47]

about the microgrid, from my text New horizons in physics:

"The TOE, it will be a concept where space creates matter. And more specifically the square microgrid of space, 10^-65 m in size creates matter by twisting (more precisely, it creates the smallest particles by twisting, and these combine into larger particles). This is similar to computer simulations from 1980's of XX century, where the simulation grids gave images of three-dimensional objects. This microgrid is like a mental simulation and some degree it is."

 

[Wise47]

I have now reverted to the version from the first post in this thread.

 

[Wise47]

No, but I return to the more idealistic version.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[Wise47]

However, I'm going back to the version from the first post.

 

[Wise47]

Ultimately, I take this position:

To resolve the age old dispute between idealism, realism, and materialism, we should probably assume the contribution of two components. In a 50/50 ratio, or with a predominance of one or the other. It seems best to adopt the golden ratio in this case. That is, a division of 0.62 of one component and 0.38 of the other. Since things and phenomena should persist and not be completely or partially unstable, we should assume a predominance of the material and real components. Thus, we will have a contribution of 0.62 of the material and real components and 0.32 of the idealistic components. Let me decribe this positions as ideorealism and ideomaterialism.

 

[Cassandro]

Sophistry. All is sophistry.

 

[zaangalewa]

Always dangerous to do drugs and then post.

I don't need drugs or alcohol to be this way. And if you do use drugs and/or alcohol, then I'm afraid you won't be able to understand much of the universal melodies that have been sung for 13.8 billion years.