I have been recently discussing with my fellow Christians about philosophy of mind and more actively Bohmian mechanics. Now I have criticized that interpretation of quantum mechanics before but in this blog I intend to apply it to substance dualism and show some of the implications if one wants to be a substance dualist AND hold to bohmian mechanics.

First just to define our terms. First substance dualism is the view that both matter and mind are seperate fundamental substances in nature and that one does not depend on the other. Interactionism is how these two substances interact with each other and finally Bohmian mechanics is an interpretation in quantum mechanics that attempts to save realism from the measurement problem.

In bohmian mechanics (the non-relativistic version) you have two equations.

The Schrodinger equation: describes the changes over time of a physical system in which quantum effects such as wave–particle duality, are significant.

The guidance equation: states that the velocity field for the configuration is given by the quantum current divided by the density

These equations govern the “pilot wave” which makes observers unnecessary to collapse the wave function therefore allowing a full independent objective physical reality to exist without observation. This allows the preservation of a mind-independent reality that would be true under a physical ontology. With this in mind we want to note to the readers that if Bohmian mechanics is true then there is no need for conscious observers to collapse the wave function and therefore no mental causal link between the physical and the mental. This has huge implications on philosophy of mind since consciousness would have no effects on fundamental physics and likewise may be an emergent effect of matter.

Now before we get back to physics let’s discuss interactionism. Interactionism is how mind and matter interact and in substance dualism there is a problem called the interaction problem for how its possible for two completely separate substances to interact with each other. Now I know many substance dualist object to the problem but for the purposes of this post I am going to actually propose the best solution to the interaction problem that I have been able to come up with. Keep in mind I do still think the problem itself is not solved by my proposal but I think it atleast makes interactionism in substance dualism have much more explanatory power.

An idealist proposed solution to the interaction problem: So as mentioned before substance dualism must account for the interaction between matter and mind as such these things under this view are BOTH fundamental and therefore the solution to any interaction between the two must be in our most fundamental theories about physics (If the immaterial mind can have an effect on the material brain). And it turns out the most fundamental theory of physics is quantum mechanics since it deals with the most fundamental particles of nature. My proposed solution to the interaction problem will come from standard quantum mechanics (SQT). In (SQT) the only thing you have is the schrodinger equation and observers. The guidance equation is not necessary to explain the data that standard quantum theory has and so it is not included. With this in mind an observer is always needed to explain the collapse of the wave function and observers can include anything from particles to buildings to rocks etc. But this creates philosophical issues since if observers are necessary in SQT and if something is always needed to collapse the wave function and all particles (non-conscious observers) need more outside observers then this will create an infinite regress of particles collapsing each other. However we (as conscious observers) always see the world in a definite state so therefore whatever causes final collapse of the wave function cannot be particles but must be conscious entities as these things were considered to not be bound by the laws of quantum mechanics. As the quantum enigma explains

“In his 1932 treatment, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,
John von Neumann rigorously displayed quantum theory’s inevitable
encounter with consciousness. Von Neumann considered an idealized
quantum measurement starting with a microscopic object in a superposi-
tion state and ending with the observer. A Geiger counter, for example,
completely isolated from the rest of the world, contacts a quantum system,
say, an atom simultaneously in two boxes. The Geiger counter is set to fire
if the atom is in the bottom box, and to remain unfired if the atom is in the
top box. Von Neumann showed that the isolated Geiger counter, a physical
object governed by quantum mechanics, would entangle with the atom in
both boxes. It would thus be in a superposition state with the atom.
It would thus be simultaneously in the fired and unfired state. (We saw
this situation in the case of Schrodinger’s cat.)

Should a second device, also isolated, contact the Geiger counter — say
an electronic instrument indicating whether or not the Geiger counter has
fired — it joins the superposition state wavefunction, indicating both situa-
tions simultaneously. This so-called “von Neumann chain” can continue
indefinitely. Von Neumann showed that no physical system obeying the
laws of physics (i.e. , quantum theory) could collapse a superposition state
wavefunction to yield a particular result. However, we know that the
observer at the end point of the von Neumann chain always sees a particu-
lar result, a fired or not fired Geiger counter, not a superposition. Von
Neumann showed that for all practical purposes the wavefunction could
be considered collapsed at any macroscopic stage of the measurement
chain where an interference demonstration becomes essentially impossi-
ble. Nevertheless, he concluded that, strictly speaking, collapse takes
place only at the “Ich,” the same word Freud used for the Ego, the con-
scious mind.” – The Quantum Enigma 238.

So when one includes the philosophical implications of SQT then the mind can and will have a causal role in nature and this perfectly explains the interaction between mind and body therefore providing the best solution to the interaction problem. This also solves any “measurement problem” since the conscious observer would be the one that solves it, and all of this is true without the need for unnecessary physics. It only becomes a problem if one has metaphysical prejudice for what they think how nature ought to act. With this in mind SQT has the best solution to the interaction problem. In fact one can say the “interaction problem” and the “measurement problem” are the same problem however some still do not like the implications and this will advance to my next point.

If a substance dualist holds to Bohmian mechanics then they have no explanation for interactionism and therefore it becomes nothing more than magic. If it’s the case that Bohmian mechanics is true and therefore no conscious observer is necessary then the mind would not be involved in fundamental physics. This can go two ways either substance dualism is false since the mind is not involved in fundamental physics or substance dualist have no explanation for interactionism.

The Bohmian dualist dilemma: This of course creates a dilemma for those substance dualist that happen to hold to and defend Bohmian mechanics. If substance dualism is true then its a fact that matter and mind are fundamental substances and as such these substances will be explained by fundamental physics which happens to be quantum mechanics. Bohmian mechanics is an interpretation that Bohmian dualist accept however under bohmian mechanics consciousness is not involved in fundamental physics and so if substance dualism is true then there is no explanation for interactionism making dualism literally magic (If we assume both bohmian mechanics and dualism are true). So these are their options

1. Bohmian mechanics is true but substance dualism is false
2. Bohmian mechanics is false but substance dualism is true (Which makes one accept SQT)
3. Bohmian mechanics is true and substance dualism is true (providing no explanation of interactionism making it magic)

All of this is to show that Bohmian mechanics and substance dualism are incompatible unless one wants to have no explanation of interactionism. I am doing this in the hopes that people can hold to beliefs that don’t contradict each other. I know I will gets criticism from this post but I only hope for my opponents to revise their beliefs (or switch around their jigsaw puzzle of their belief systems) if one has an explanation of interactionism that can work under Bohmian mechanics and happens to be better than my proposed explanation then I will concede and update this post to notify my readers that I not longer find its arguments credible. (As I did with past post) Until then the challenge I present to dualist that hold to bohmian mechanics will stand. 

This is a response to this video: https://youtu.be/ThRAjEUQKFQ

So Chocolate hat has responded to my original blog and he once again has shown he simply does not understand any of my criticisms. I will try my best to respond to each criticism he makes and show why he has not saved materialism in any non-ad hoc way. I will explain what that means but to start off he made a previous response to the first part of my blog which I respond to on my Facebook page here. https://www.facebook.com/CivilianName295/posts/365639533857863

And so this blog post will be addressing part 2 of his response to my blog. Normally if a response is short I just use my Facebook page but in this instance there is a lot that needs to be addressed and so this deserves a blog. I will also be addressing his decoherence argument and responding to many of his objections. So his first objections don’t start until 5:30-5:40

“No evidence for consciousness playing a role in collapse” 

He mainly objects that the consciousness causes collapse (CCC for short) is only one interpretation and I would agree with him on this. In fact our version of CCC is not the same most people think about because in our version consciousness only creates the physical appearance of reality and not matter itself. This should be clear given that under theism God creates the reality and we don’t we are only the participants in reality and not the creators of it. So I wanted to make that point clear to both chocolate and my readers so there is no misunderstanding. What he doesn’t understand is the Heisenberg/Dirac choice which is how we choose between the different possibilities of the wave function. This is the basis of standard quantum theory (orthodox Copenhagen interpretation) but I will explain this later. 

6:00-6:05 

“All interpretations of QM are equally consistent with the theory”

Again I would agree however this doesn’t have to do with which one is the right one it has to do with parsimony and it being ad hoc or not. As I pointed out in my previous blog response Bohmian mechanics works but it’s also ad hoc which is my response to your claim that quantum mechanics doesn’t debunk materialism. The fact that its ad hoc gives us good reason to reject it however you still don’t seem to understand that point. Yes quantum mechanics doesn’t totally debunk materialism but in order to save materialism you have to make ad hoc interpretations to fit the data which is not rational and not going where the evidence leads. 

6:30-8:27

“Many world explains quantum mechanics mathematically and is the simplest formalization, Occam razor alone cannot debunk the MWI…as for IP video please feel free to watch it but we should learn to take IP with a punch of salt and to double-check everything he says” 

So Chocolate Hat had nothing to say about the real criticisms of the MWI and so he just dismisses it pretending they don’t exist. Well if he can’t defend his position regarding the MWI then I suspect that he shouldn’t use it as a defense of realism. So he doesn’t attempt to defend the MWI at all. The only thing he responds to is Occam’s razor however as I pointed out that includes the other criticism so on top of the other criticisms it’s a violation of Occam’s razor because in order to fix the problems it has to create ad hoc assumptions that’s what it means to violate Occam’s razor. 

Next he mocks my misspelling of the word “bohemian mechanics” with “bohmian mechanics”. Well I don’t know if this is to entertain his audience but yes I misspelled the term. So that does nothing to address my original criticism, moving on now

So ironically chocolate hat talks briefly about quantum entanglement and how two particles from opposite sides of the universe can interact and I agree its valid. What he doesn’t realize is that under quantum entanglement in order for relativity to work space would need to be an illusion to allow the entanglement to happen beneath space-time and so the space between all objects does not exist. Meaning that objects don’t actually exist but are emergent phenomena as emergent space time shows us. Materialism says that only physical objects exist and that the physical is all there is. So if physical objects only exist within space time and if space time is an illusion then materialism is automatically debunked since no objective physical object exist but instead is an emergent illusion and we all know our minds can’t be illusions since that claiming the mind is an illusion destroys all knowledge claims you can make. So nice job accidentally debunking materialism chocolate hat 😉 

11:30-15:20

Chocolate hat doesn’t address the objections raised by the papers that critique bohmian mechanics he just responds by saying that these issues are still debated and that physicist still hold to bohmian mechanics. 

The main problem with Chocolate responses is that I’m not proposing the interpretation to be wrong but rather that its ad hoc and thus should be rejected. The papers were cited not to disprove bohmian mechanics but rather show why it’s very ad hoc and should not be considered a good alternative to standard quantum theory. That is my main point and if he didn’t get that at my original blog then it was a misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make.

15:30-16:12

“Decoherence poses a problem for CCC since the quantum system becomes decohered so that no quantum effects take place and photo detectors can cause collapse” 

So this is essentially Chocolate hats decoherence argument that he made in his response to IP. That quantum systems decohere with each other making them collapse before anyone looks. Well there are many problems with this decoherence argument and I will point out why. First if we are talking from a pragmatic standpoint, then yes, the photo detector causes collapse and I have never denied that. However, it completely misses the real issue of what that would entail, namely a following von Neumann chain to initiate ultimate collapse. So despite chocolate hats claim, the von Neumann chain does take into effect the environmental decoherence effects on particles. But decoherence alone cannot fully explain collapse beyond a pragmatic understanding, and the debate is over the truth of reality. So this appears to be a bait and switch: announce interaction/decoherence can fully explain collapse, but fail to mention that it only applies in the pragmatic Copenhagen Interpretation, which doesn’t address the truth of what reality is. There are many physicist that admit that decoherence doesn’t solve the measurement problem. As E Joos said quoted,“Does decoherence solve the measurement problem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us, is that certain objects appear classical when they are observed. But what is an observation? At some stage, we still have to apply the usual probability rules of quantum theory.¹“. There are far more I could have used, like this one from Maximilian Scholosshauer, “…decoherence arises from a direct application of the quantum mechanical formalism to a description of the interaction of a physical system with its environment. By itself, decoherence is therefore neither an interpretation nor a modification of quantum mechanics.²” In fact I could keep going on, but the point is physicists do not say the interaction/decoherence can fully explain collapse other than from a pragmatic standpoint. And there are many good papers that explain why decoherence cannot solve the measurement problem beyond a pragmatic understanding. (1)

The reason why they use decoherence is because it doesn’t take any metaphysical conclusions into account and also we are slowly starting to see quantum effects happen at the macro level, decoherence is what makes things look classical but they in reality are not so chocolate hats decoherence argument fails.

17:10-17:20

“If you can propose a mathematical calculation that is consistent with the data that is falsifiable then you can qualify your thesis”

Yes I have one in fact its a direct mathematical derivation of conscious agents. This model predicts quantum mechanics itself, general relativity and a solution to the hard problem. You may be making predictions from quantum mechanics as well as the interpretations however conscious agent dynamics predicts quantum mechanics, general relativity all while solving the hard problem that materialism has caused. You want mathematical derivations I have one in this paper (2)

So near the end of the video Chocolate hat seems to misunderstand that we are not saying OUR consciousness creates reality but that God is creating reality. The Heisenberg/Dirac choice is how we participate in nature not control it. This is me and IPs position regarding this issue. The observer has the ability to put the right questions into nature and yield a result. As Henry Stapp says “The observer in quantum theory does more than just read the recordings. He also chooses which question will be put into nature: which aspect of nature his inquiry will probe. I call this important function of the observer the “Heisenberg choice” to contrast it with the “Dirac choice” which is the random choice on the part of nature that Dirac emphasized.” (more about this can be read here) (3) 

So according to standard quantum theory the Dirac choice is a choice between alternatives that are specified by the Heisenberg choice. The observer must first specify which aspect of the system he will probe than nature returns with the Dirac choice. So it is the observer who asks the question and recognizes the answer. The interaction chain steams back from an ability to make a Heisenberg choice which gets a random Dirac choice from nature and this is how we get one actual outcome from the wave function. Only the observer has the ability to “choose” (Give Heisenberg choice) between possibilities, non-conscious measuring devices cannot.

And so this refutes Chocolate hats last objection regarding quantum mechanics. Now I understand that chocolate hat can respond to even these criticisms my main point is that the interpretations that try to save realism are ad hoc and should not be taken seriously. I know chocolate hat and many others won’t like this and they will stick to realist interpretations but its ad hoc. There are also very strong philosophical arguments as well as quantum gravity research that points us to a simulated universe and idealism but for now we can see why the responses from chocolate hat at best make the realist interpretations possible but not plausible. Yes realist interpretations are possible but possibility is not probability and so if we want to be less ad hoc we should reject materialism since it requires ad hoc assumptions for it to be compatible with quantum mechanics.

(1) https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112095

(2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060643/

(3) https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905054

So ever since I published my infinite simulation argument I have been getting feedback from both atheist and Christians. The biggest and only objection I have seen besides the ones I addressed in the original blog was that P4 of the argument is question begging and I agree it does beg the question. So how do we fix this problem? Simple you modify the argument so it does not beg the question. So I will first present the original version of the argument then present the modified version of it.

The original infinite simulation argument

P1) Simulated universes outnumber real universes

P2) We are more likely in a simulated universe (1)

P3) The more advanced a civilization the more simulations it can run

C1: Therefore we are more likely being simulated in one of the most advanced civilizations (1),(2),(3)

P4) God is more advanced than the most advanced civilization (Because of Gods omnipotence) 

C2: Therefore we are most likely being simulated in Gods mind

The basic objection is that P4 begs the question by assuming God exist so now I will modify it to avoid the question begging problem.

The modified infinite simulation argument

P1) Simulated universes outnumber real universes

P2) We are more likely in a simulated universe (1)

P3) The more advanced a civilization the more simulations it can run

C1: Therefore we are more likely being simulated in one of the most advanced civilizations (1),(2),(3)

P4) An omnipotent God would be more advanced than the most advanced civilization

C2: Therefore we are most likely being simulated in Gods mind

So with modifying P4 we see that it’s not begging the question since its not assuming God just that an omnipotent God would be more advanced than the most advanced civilization this is because omnipotence is defined as all-powerful and so an omnipotent God would by definition be far more powerful than any advanced civilization. And so the issues we mentioned before would still apply. Like I said in the first blog

”Just to put this into perspective which is most likely out of these

a) Existing in the real world in 2017

b) Existing in one of the half dozen simulations of 2020

c) Existing in one of the 10,000,000 simulations of 2040

d) Existing in one of the 20,000,000,000 simulations of 2090

e) Existing in one of the 100,000,000,000,000 simulations of 2100

f) Existing in one of the 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 simulations of 2500

g) Existing in one of the Centillion simulations of 3000

h) Existing in one of the infinite simulations in Gods mind

The most likely (and inevitable because of Gods ability to simulate an infinite amount of simulated universes) is option H that we are being simulated in the mind of God.”

And so the conclusion is inescapable unless if you want to hold to an infinitely improbable belief that God does not exist. So we can see why this new infinite simulation argument avoids the objections I mentioned and thus there is no rational reason to reject the conclusion.

If you have been reading this blog you have noticed that we here at christian idealism and apologetic’s promote the idea of panentheism the belief that God is greater than the universe and everything in existence is being simulated in Gods mind. Many Christians I have spoken this about don’t like this idea because many heretical religions like Hinduism and christian science teach this same thing that the universe is in Gods mind. Well we also do teach it however when it comes to Gods nature they have a much different version of it than what we here are advocating.

In Hinduism and christian science they hold to strong panentheism the belief the universe and God share a complete identity but God is also a personal being. So basically God simulates the universe within his mind but the universe is necessarily correlated with the Godhead. This is not the panentheism that we subscribe to and I would agree that this is not a safe christian doctrine but what we hold to is weak panentheism.

Weak panentheismis the belief creation is contingent and distinct from God but still dependent on him, they are distinct but creation depends on God and cannot exist without him this is exactly the belief that the universe is in Gods mind and is simulated by Gods mind but that God is the ultimate being and is existence itself. This would be a hybrid of classical theism and weak panentheism since creation depends on God and creation is in Gods mind but yet God is the absolute source of existence which is why its classical theism. So in this view creation is not part of Gods essence but its also not separate from him and creation emerges from the divine energies of God and not the divine essence of God like in strong panentheism. This captures the heart of scripture since it says God and creation are separate but yet creation is dependent on God.

Acts 17:28 “In him we live and move and have our being, As some of your own poets have said we are his offspring”

Colossians 1:17 “And he is before all things and in him all things hold together”

John 14:19-20 “Yet a little while and the world will see me no more but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my father, And you in me, and I in you.”

So the bible teaches creation is distinct from God but also dependent on him which is why the universe is being simulated in Gods mind. Now the main thing that makes strong and weak panentheism different is the essence energy distinction. In strong panentheism creation emerges from Gods essence but in weak panentheism creation emerges from the divine energies of God. One of the important doctrine’s taught in the early church that has been forgotten by theistic dualist is the essence-energy distinction. The essence is completely other, wholly transcendent outside the realm of the created but yet God works in creation to have a relationship with us and this is achieved through the energies of God but the energies are still fully God. Basically Gods energies are radiations of divine glory but are no more the divine essence than rays are to the sun. So to put this into simple terms you have God then the divine energies are Gods thoughts or words (platonic information) that radiate from Gods essence and the energies of God (platonic information) create or simulate our physical universe into existence. So under a classical theism/weak panentheism hybrid model of God you have God as he is the absolute metaphysical ultimate being with all his attributes such as being all powerful and all knowing but yet all of creation exist within him like a simulation or dream environment within his mind but the simulation is not part of Gods essence it only exist like a dream just like when we have dreams our minds essence is not a part of the dream it only creates the dream. So that is the difference between weak and strong panantheism so Christians can accept objective idealism without compromising scripture.

I am going to present an argument for the existence of God that is brand new and I believe a lot of theistic idealist will like it a lot. It argues that Gods existence is virtually inevitable and that theism must be true. Here is the argument then I will address possible objections to the argument.

Nick bostrom simulation argument shows that simulated universe outnumber real universes and how its more likely we live in a simulated universe. Now its also true that the more advanced civilization the more simulations it can run. So if we are simulated in a computer its more likely that we are in one of the more advanced civilizations. The most advanced civilization possible would be a type 5 or type 6 simulation. But Gods mind is more advanced than the most advanced civilization so we can make a new argument for God. 

The infinite simulation argument

P1) Simulated universes outnumber real universes

P2) We are more likely in a simulated universe (1)

P3) The more advanced a civilization the more simulations it can run

C1: Therefore we are more likely being simulated in one of the most advanced civilizations (1),(2),(3)

P4) God is more advanced than the most advanced civilization (Because of Gods omnipotence) 

C2: Therefore we are most likely being simulated in Gods mind

Just to put this into perspective which is most likely out of these

a) Existing in the real world in 2017

b) Existing in one of the half dozen simulations of 2020

c) Existing in one of the 10,000,000 simulations of 2040

d) Existing in one of the 20,000,000,000 simulations of 2090

e) Existing in one of the 100,000,000,000,000 simulations of 2100

f) Existing in one of the 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 simulations of 2500

g) Existing in one of the Centillion simulations of 3000

h) Existing in one of the infinite simulations in Gods mind

The most likely (and inevitable because of Gods ability to simulate an infinite amount of simulated universes) is option H that we are being simulated in the mind of God. This renders Gods existence as virtually inevitable and making materialism,dualism and atheism virtually impossible. Thus the conclusion is virtually impossible to escape we are in Gods mind and our universe is the result of Gods day dreaming meaning that objective idealism must be true. Now I will respond to some possible objections that might be made against the infinite simulation argument. 

Responding to possible objections 

Objection 1: There can be simulations inside computers so then you don’t need God to simulate universes. 

Response: It is true that you wouldn’t necessarily need God to simulate universes however there is a problem with saying we are being simulated in a computer rather than Gods mind. If we are being simulated by a computer than the universe where the computer is in would also have to be a simulation like ours. Why? Because our world is based on Qubits (quantum world) and so in order for a computer to simulate a world like ours the computer would also be based on Qubits (quantum world) which implies that the computer simulating our world would itself be a simulation and so on and so on so and this cycle would continue in an infinite regress. But what if one of the higher levels was not a world based on Qubits (not a quantum world) but an actual objective material world with mind-independent matter (or Matter not being simulated). Well this solution creates more problems than it solves since for a quantum world like ours with Qubits to be simulated in a mind-independent world (Materialist/Dualist world) all the Qubits in our simulated universe would have to be unpacked into classical bits which requires a computer hard drive larger than what is being simulated which is a computer bigger than the universe itself which would be impossible to build. So yes we can be in a computer simulation but if we are then it still logically follows that we are in Gods mind since a mind doesn’t face these problems. 

Objection 2: Saying there is an infinite number of simulations in Gods mind violates Occam’s razor 

Response: The argument does not depend on God simulating an infinite amount of universe rather it only relies on God having the ABILITY to simulate an infinite about of universes not him necessarily doing so. This is because computers always have limited storage space no madder how advanced a computer is but God is limitless and thus can simulate an infinite amount. 

Objection 3: The argument doesn’t work since I can say there is an infinite amount of real universes and thus the argument fails 

Response: The problem is that this violates Occam’s razor since now your actually proposing the idea there is an infinite amount of real universes rather than just saying something has the ability to make infinite universes. Saying there has to be a real mind-independent universe just because you can postulate infinite universes is circular reasoning and not an argument. 

Closing statement 

I’m not at all saying this argument proves theism but it makes it virtually (almost) inevitably true. This argument I believe is a very strong theistic idealism argument since it’s arguing for an idealist God rather than a dualist God. I may have objections to the argument that were not listed in this blog so in future blogs I will respond to any new objections that pop up. 

Here I am going to lost the top 5 fallacies that materialist make whenever they try to argue that materialism is true. These include times when they try to argue the mind emerges from the brain or how the feeling of pain proves material reality. I will list the names of these fallacies and show examples of when materialist use them

Fallacy #5. The straw man fallacy: is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent

Example: If you don’t believe the world is material and real then you are hold to solipsism

Explanation: Materialist often commit this fallacy when idealist argue that reality is mind-dependent and so they automatically assume we are arguing for solipsism even tho we dont hold to solipsism at all.

Fallacy #4: Post-hoc fallacy: literally, “after this therefore because of this.” The post hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because one thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it.

Example: The mind emerges from the brain because if you damage the brain then you damage the mind

Explanation: Materialist say that if we damage the brain then we also damage the mind and that we can show how our thoughts are mapped out in the brain and therefore the mind is automatically a product of the brain. The reason why this is a fallacy is because the mapping out of thoughts or dreams only show correlations of mind and brain and not causation of brain to mind.

Fallacy #3: Non-sequitur fallacy: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises.  In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion. 

Example: We have shown the mind emerges from the brain through fMRI scans able to see what we are thinking and experiencing and the connection of neurons producing consciousness so the mind is a product of the brain  

Explanation: This fallacy is often committed by materialist when they produce a model of the brain. The reason why its a fallacy is because there is is some logical error in the model and doesn’t solve the hard problem of consciousness so they ignore the hard problem and go by there model or whenever they attempt to solve the hard problem some illogical conclusion or premise is in the argument that does not follow from the premises or one of the premises are false.

One example of a non-sequitur argument

P1) The mind and brain exist

P2) The brain is a physical substance

P3) Qualia is reduced to physical substance

P4) The mind has qualia

C) Therefore the mind is reduced to the brain

The non-sequitur is when P3 says that qualia can be reduced to physical substance even tho we know it can never be reduced to physical substance.

Fallacy #2: Appeal to ridicule fallacy: Presenting the argument in such a way that makes the argument look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or the use of exaggeration.

Example: Quantum idealism is quantum woo

Explanation: This is the materialist favorite fallacy. The reason its an appeal to ridicule is because it’s not an argument against idealism it’s just ridiculing idealism and not actually refuting it with a logical argument.

Fallacy #1: Bare assertion fallacy: is an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion.

Example: The mind is what the brain does

Explanation: This is the most common fallacy commit by all materialist since they provide no evidence or proof for their assertion that the mind is what the brain does. The reason why its a fallacy is because they are unable to prove he mind is what the brain does since neuroscience can only show correlations between mind and brain and not showing the mind is what the brain does in a way that solves the hard problem of consciousness.

So those are the top 5 fallacies materialist commit whenever they try to argue materialism is valid.

Since we have refuted the common objections to objective idealism I want to close this series by basically summarizing the whole thing. In (Part 1) we examined philosophy of mind and the problems for positions that compete with idealism. In (Part 2) we discussed quantum mechanics and certain experiments that support idealism. In (Part 3) we showed how the universe is a simulation and the evidence that supports it. In (Part 4) we discussed integrated information theory and quantum cognition and how our thoughts are modeled quantum mechanically. In (Part 5) and (Part 6) we discussed Neoplatonism and the difference between inner space and outer space. In (Part 7) we talked about the mind of God and presented the infinite simulation argument. In (Part 8) we discussed the difference between existence and non-existence in objective idealism and finally in (Part 9) we refuted common objections to idealism.

This series was one of my long ones and I hope all my readers enjoyed reading its content. I will do future series in this blog and blog post about different things but this series was meant for a layman audience to understand objective idealism and some of the evidence that supports it. But for now we can confidently say that all of reality is inside Gods day dream as we are figments of Gods imagination. So that will conclude this series and I hope to more in the future I will leave you a quote from Werner Heisenberg

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense, they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language” -Werner Heisenberg theoretical physicist.

Since we have explained the difference between existence and non-existence in objective idealism we are now going to refute the most common objections to idealism. These are not all the objections but they are the most common ones herd from materialist and dualist.

Objection 1: Its all woo

Response: Actually no its the new paradigm in physics called “It from bit”. A small number of scientist proponents include, Seth Lloyd, MIT quantum computer scientist, David Deutsch, pioneer in quantum computing, Paola Zizzi, loop quantum gravity theorist, Le Smolin, quantum gravity theorist, Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, quantum gravity and quantum information theorist, Anton Zeilinger, inventor of quantum teleportation, John Archibald Wheler, nuclear fission theorist also colleague of Albert Einstein. So are all those scientist woo? I think not and that doesn’t include nearly all the quantum gravity researchers that are studying this stuff that are coming to the conclusion that the world is a simulation, proponents of quantum information theory and the consensus of spacetime emerging from entangled information. Quantum mechanics has since been reduced to quantum information theory which describes the world as a quantum computer (simulation) rather than material objects. So is quantum information theory woo? No its not and there are many scientist that propose it and support it because it works and makes predictions like every other scientific theory. Oh but wait your saying its consciousness causing collapse that’s woo well under objective idealism that would be the Von neumann chain and so “consciousness causing collapse” is a trivial term and really not that important. The Von neumann chain is just standard orthodox quantum theory so its not woo.

Objection 2: Physicalism is everything described by physics and everything that is measurable/observable/testable and predictable is material so everything outside the material does not exist.

Well if you define physicalism to mean everything described by physics then idealist would also be physicalist since all of reality is the same substance so that definition is meaningless. Second you never actually see material things only its perceptions this is because things like qualia and colors are not material they are mental. In fact everything we do is on a mental level only so the things that are truly measurable/observable/testable and predictable are all mental and not material so this turns the entire objection on its head. In reality everything outside the mental (Anything completely mind-independent) does not exist.

Objection 3: Neuroscience has shown the mind is emergent from the brain

Response: No it has not. What neuroscience shows are correlations between mind and brain and not mind emerging from the brain. Saying the mind emerges from the brain because of correlations is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (Latin: “after this, therefore because of this”) is a logical fallacy that states “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.” It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy.

Objection 4: Objective idealism is incompatible with theism since God would need to collapse the entire universe for us and if we live in a simulation God would just be a computer programmer and not a true God.

Response: I will divide this objection into 2 parts

(a) God would need to collapse the entire universe since he is in space observing us and observation causes collapse

Well first of all if we live in a simulation then space is an illusion and so God wouldn’t be in space observing us. Second God is not separate from us so he is observing us having an experience of a physical world and apart from our experience there is nothing that needs to be observed since it exist in a state of a wave function. Third we only create the physical appearance of reality and not reality itself. Gods mind is what creates all of reality not our minds.

(b) If we are in a simulation then all God would have to be is a computer programmer.

Actually this is false and i already addressed this response in (Part 7) of this series. Basically for a quantum world like ours with Qubits to be simulated in a mind-independent world (Materialist/Dualist world) all the Qubits in our simulated universe would have to be unpacked into classical bits which requires a computer hard drive larger than what is being simulated which is a computer bigger than the universe itself. So we are being simulated in a computer than our simulators would also be simulated themselves so it would inevitable lead to theism as I explained in more detail (Part 7) of this series.

Objection 5: Objective idealism is incompatible with Christianity

Well no this again is wrong. There is the essence/energy distinction taught in orthodox Christianity which teaches how all is in God, All is dependent on God but that God is greater than the universe.  This is known as weak panetheism and if you would like more detail you can watch this video on the subject. https://youtu.be/_xki03G_TO4

So in conclusion these objections against objective idealism don’t work. We will deal with more objections in future blogs but these are the ones I hear most often from both dualist and materialist and we can see why they don’t work. Next we are going to close this series with some final thoughts in mind.

Since we  explained in the last part how everything exist within the day dream of God we are now going to distinguish between things that can exist in objective idealism and things that are non-existent in objective idealism. Keep in mind I’m not saying any of these things exist/don’t exist or that its impossible for them to exist or not exist just that under objective idealism there are certain things that CAN exist and others that CANNOT exist. So if your not an objective idealist then what I will talk about might not apply to you but if your an objective idealist where you believe the universe is in the mind of God then this would apply to you. So now lets get started with the different things that can and cannot exist if objective idealism were true.

Objective idealism says that objects can still exist independent of OUR minds but it would still be dependent on Gods mind. So then matter would still be mind-dependent just not dependent on our minds. So what can exist in objective idealism is matter being simulated (or dependent) in Gods mind so then anything that is in our universe would be mind-dependent on God. To make it simple this is what existence is defined as in objective idealism

Existence according to objective idealism: All the things that are dependent on God’s mind for existence.

Since idealism says the mind is fundamental then in objective idealism there would be one perceive (God) that simulates everything into existence and so existence would be defined as everything that exist within the mind of God and anything in the mind of God would exist in our reality.

Now that we have defined what existence is in objective idealism we will now define what non-existence means in objective idealism. In our every day lives when we say something does not exist it means that it is not part of reality and thus is something that we will never experience. For example we know married bachelors don’t exist because that is a logical contradiction so it would be considered non-existent. In objective idealism there are also things considered non-existent which I will now define.

Non-existence according to objective idealism: Anything that is completely mind-independent

What this means is that things or objects that are not dependent on anyone’s mind including Gods mind would be non-existent in objective idealism. In other words all things that are mind-independent (not dependent on a mind) would not exist. So then if objective idealism is true then nothing is mind-independent and everything that exist would be dependent on a mind.

In fact we could not even conceive of a mind-independent reality without a mind so you cant logically think of a reality that is independent of the mind. Which means it would make more sense to say that anything mind-independent is as meaningful as a married bachelor since the concept of a mind-independent reality is a logical contradiction (since you would need to conceive the concept of a mind-independent reality with a mind) so it should be considered non-existent since everything we do is dependent on a mind.

So that is the difference between existence and non-existence according to objective idealism. In the next part we are going to refute common objections to objective idealism. I will leave you a quote from Max Planck to close of this part of the series.

“I regard consciousness as fundamental . I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness” – Max Planck, The observer (25 January 1931)

Now that we have shown the difference between inner space and outer space we are now going to discuss the mind of God. Under objective idealism Gods mind simulates the universe like a dream environment. Now in (Part 3) we have shown how the universe is a simulation but we did not discuss why it must be in the mind of God and not a computer. Well if we are being simulated by a computer than the universe where the computer is in would also have to be a simulation like ours. Why? Because our world is based on Qubits (quantum world) and so in order for a computer to simulate a world like ours the computer would also be based on Qubits (quantum world) which implies that the computer simulating our world would itself be a simulation and so on and so on so and this cycle would continue in an infinite regress. But what if one of the higher levels was not a world based on Qubits (not a quantum world) but an actual objective material world with mind-independent matter (or Matter not being simulated). Well this solution creates more problems than it solves since for a quantum world like ours with Qubits to be simulated in a mind-independent world (Materialist/Dualist world) all the Qubits in our simulated universe would have to be unpacked into classical bits which requires a computer hard drive larger than what is being simulated which is a computer bigger than the universe itself which would be impossible to build and this leaves us with a better option, the universe is being simulated in a mind.

Since computer simulations either leaves us with computers bigger than universes or an infinite regress of computer simulations the most logical option is our universe being simulated in a mind.  A mind does not require matter to exist and has integrated information and can process information on its own. The physics in a dream would be the same as the physics as a simulated universe since it would come from platonic information processing. In other words we are in the day dream of God. Everything that is or was, began with a dream. Now one could always say that we are still simulated in a computer and that Gods mind really simulates a higher level of reality however this would violate Occam’s razor since it would be unnecessary to add computer simulations if all we need is Gods mind but even if one insisted we are in a computer simulation the universe would still be simulated in a mind anyways since Gods mind simulates everything including the simulations inside computers since the computers themselves are being simulated so the conclusion is inevitable our universe is being simulated in the mind of God.

Now in (Part 3) we mentioned the simulation argument and how it shows that simulated universe outnumber real universes and how its more likely we live in a simulated universe. Now its also true that the more advanced civilization the more simulations it can run. So if we are simulated in a computer its more likely that we are in one of the more advanced civilizations. The most advanced civilization possible would be a type 5 or type 6 simulation. But Gods mind is more advanced than the most advanced civilization which means we can create a strong probability argument. 

The infinite simulation argument 

P1) Simulated universes outnumber real universes

P2) We are more likely in a simulated universe

P3) The more advanced a civilization the more simulations it can run

C1: Therefore we are more likely in one of the most advanced civilizations

P4) God is more advanced than the most advanced civilization 

C2: Therefore we are most likely in Gods mind

Just to put this into perspective which is most likely out of these

a) Existing in the real world in 2017

b) Existing in one of the half dozen simulations of 2020

c) Existing in one of the 10,000,000 simulations of 2040

d) Existing in one of the 20,000,000,000 simulations of 2090

e) Existing in one of the 100,000,000,000,000 simulations of 2100

f) Existing in one of the 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 simulations of 2500

g) Existing in one of the Centillion simulations of 3000

h) Existing in one of the infinite simulations in Gods mind

The most likely (and inevitable because of what was shown before about computer simulations) is option H that we are being simulated in the mind of God. This renders Gods existence as inevitable and making materialism and dualism impossible. Thus the conclusion is impossible to escape we are in Gods mind and our universe is the result of Gods day dreaming meaning that objective idealism must be true.

OK now I’m not saying this is absolute proof for theism or objective idealism but it gives a very strong probability argument for God and objective idealism. The only alternative is solipsism but of course the problem with solipsism is that we cant control our reality so the more logical option is objective idealism and theism. And so everything would exist in the mind of God and we would be the creations of Gods day dream and God is the day dreamer something that would be true in objective idealism. Basically God is a solipsist and everything would depend on his mind and the minds that he creates would all exist within his mind as figments of his imagination.