The Problems of Theistic Idealism

InspiringPhilosophy's original video:

My tumblr:

Also my society6 store, if you want to see my pretentious, minimalist poster designs:

[snarky]

The problem that I keep running into when discussing quantum mechanics is that people seem to think that "conscious observation" collapses the wave-function when this is not the case.  In actuality, any inanimate form of interaction can collapse a wave-function with no consciousness involved whatsoever.

This means that consciousness is not necessary for rules of quantum mechanics to function the way they do.

[JohananRaatz]

Nonlocality vs. many-worlds: The material world emerges from outside space-time.

Thus as you can see it is not "wholly alien to science as we currently practice it." Digital physicists, such as these fine folks at the World Science Festival are perfectly fine working under such a paradigm: Rebooting The Cosmos: Is the Universe The Ultimate Computer? (Full)

[DjVortex-w]

Using Occam's Razor to argue against something is one of the stupidest arguments, and a complete misunderstanding of the principle.
Occam's Razor is a *guiding principle*, a rule of thumb, a heuristic. It's not a hard rule.
It basically says that if two explanations are sufficient to explain a phenomenon, but one of them has superfluous, unnecessary elements to it, the simpler one tends to be correct (or at least more correct.) It doesn't mean that the more complex explanation is necessarily incorrect and the simpler one correct. It's just that we have empirically seen time after time that in most cases that's so (although not necessarily always.)

This is easiest to understand with a simple example: Suppose that you hear a noise in your closet, and when you open the door, you see that a box that was on a shelf has fallen down. You think of three hypotheses:

1) It fell by itself (perhaps because of being already on the edge, and things like humidity or vibrations finally causing it to go over.)
2) An animal (such as a mouse) caused it to fall.
3) A ghost caused it to fall.

Hypotheses 1 and 2 are simpler than hypothesis 3. They are simpler because they make significantly less unneeded assumptions about reality. We know that things like air humidity can cause materials to change (eg. soften), and we know that animals such as mice both exist, and oftentimes enter houses, and can cause all kinds of things. There are only very few, simple assumptions being made here.

Hypothesis 3, however, makes a humongous leap in our assumptions about the nature of reality, and these assumptions have in no way been corroborated or tested to be correct.

What the Occam's Razor principle tells us is that if you choose hypothesis 1 or 2, you are more likely to be correct (or at least closer to correct). Again, this is just a rule of thumb, not a hard rule. But it's a rule of thumb that works pretty well. (Exceptions exist, of course, but as said, this is not a hard rule.)

Many people misunderstand Occam's Razor in many ways (that often suit their position.) For example, they might think that "simpler" means that it's simpler/shorter to state or understand, or that it's "simpler" as an idea (eg. "God" is a "simpler" idea than, let's say, general relativity, because the former doesn't require decades of university-level education to understand.) However, Occam's Razor is not about the simplicity of formulating the hypothesis or how simple is it to grasp the idea. It's about the number of assumptions being made, and how much those assumptions correspond to corroborated reality. Even an extremely complex explanation, requiring thousands of pages of complex math and theoretical physics, may be a simpler explanation than a short "God did it", in this context. Occam's Razor is not about brevity.

[aligalal]

go argue with the quantum physicists that he referred to.
IP is nothing but a messenger.

[Venaloid]

Lesson time: the reason the wave function collapses isn't because it "knows" that your eye is looking at it: it's because all the measurement devices we use can't help but affect the particles. 

I might be mistaken, but I thought wave function collapse happens because to observe a particle we have to shoot it with other particles. It's not the abstract fact of observation itself that collapses it. It's just physically not possible to observe without causing it to collapse with way more mundane methods that are needed for observation.

[yadurajdas]

Many worlds interpretation is both ontologically and epistemologically complex.

There is not way to prove the existence of other imaginary worlds.

The other view is only posing the fact that consciousness is at the button of reality. And everything depends on it.

You and everyone depend on consciousness.. it does exists. Many worlds do only exist in consciousness as an imaginary concept

[ChipArgyle]

Wait a second.  If there's no such thing as objective reality, then there's also no such thing as objective morality, because there's nothing to apply the morality to.  That should be the point at which these apologists determine this argument fails.  Using unprovable, untestable theoretical scientific concepts to try to prove that their preferred god exists seems like an entirely ludicrous path for theists to be taking.  Why not just have their god show up?  That would be a QED for them.  And they wouldn't have to strain their brains with concepts of theoretical physics they don't understand.

BTW it's so funny that some people are like: quantum mechanics, therefor there was a guy from virgin birth with 12 followers who turned water into wine. If they would somehow scientifically prove that there is a powerful alien being out there, how would that mean the existence of the Christian God?

[chrisose]

In the eyes of the apologist, a mind is a terrible thing.

[Repzion]

This missed my sub-box, well said. Excellent video. 

[heartrocketblast]

Your objection at the end simply shows that you are unfamiliar with Idealist thought. The brain isn't some entity that the mind cooked up to control muscles, the brain IS the mind controlling the muscles... for that matter, if the brain were irrelevant, then why wouldn't muscles be, too? I think you're simply not getting the point: brain and muscles are appearances (manifestations) of self.

[gidiwouu]

using a insults as an final argument,
nice

[Venaloid]

Isn't the Observer Effect technically independent of actual consciousness? I'm pretty sure the implication of consciousness is a common misunderstanding.

[tofu_golem]

The fundamental problem with "consciousness creates reality" is that people don't understand what the "observer" is in the observer effect.

When you measure a particle, you have to interact with the particle in some way. Because subatomic particles are so tiny, whatever interaction you use is going to involve another particle of around the same energy as the thing being measured. Thus, by measuring it, you change the thing being measured.

So if you use a device to measure a particle, the thing that is the "observer" that changes the state of the particle is the part of the device that interacts with the particle, *not* the observer who reads the dials on the device.

[Tupster]

At the end I think you misunderstand idealism.  If idealism is true then you only think you have a brain, body, and that you use that body to act on an external world which is actually just a further extension of yourself.  

I'm merging in some solipsism with my idealism as well here, but it only introduces the problem of other minds if I do not also say that other people are also manifestations of the true mental reality.

My point is, for an idealist I think asking why we have brains at all is akin to asking a materialist why the standard model of QM and not something else.

[umbraemilitos]

+TMM I don't think that the Many Worlds Hypothesis needs to be called upon here. The measurable aspects of quantum theory simply do not need conscious minds. Particulate matter is always "measuring" other particulate matter, which is how they interact in the first place. Laboratory scale instruments and the LHC don't require conscious minds in order to make measurements.

[COEXISTential]

The problem I've always found with any system that asserts mind before brain (or soul infuses body) is that it has to explain why the mind uses symbols (a product of vision), why it uses language to convey symbols (only possible, or indeed necessary, with bodily organs), and in combination (and before you think I'm being trivial), why brains that use language to convey symbols do so well with the labelling of physical objects, less well with emotion and feeling, and worst of all with abstract ideas and the rationalisation thereof?

Surely, if mind-creates-brain had any validity you would expect the exact reverse?

[MerchantGhost]

That last sentence... you killed 'em, MM. No possible recovery.

[thegoldcucco]

The problem with Theistic Idealism is that even if you grant the idea that there is no such thing as a physical reality and that reality is conjured by a consciousness (or consciousnesses), what indicates that that consciousness is a deity? Furthermore, this kind of idealism asserts that we exist outside of a god being. Assuming any other part of this idealism is true, who's to say that we are not god beings? What reason is there to believe the god being is separate from us? Besides, there is no reason to believe the mind exists outside of the body, as the function of our minds can be altered by altering our brains. Brain trauma can alter memory, emotional responses, personality, and sensory perception. We are also limited by our perception, as we cannot imagine a new colour/taste/etc. All of this points to a mind grounded in a physical reality.