How to resolve the idealism-materialism dispute ?

[wise47]

I am currently presenting a different concept than the one presented in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=66268

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.

(the above paragraph is from year 2024 and 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

above text comes from site: http://sresearch.scienceontheweb.net/philosophy.php
my other works are available here: http://sresearch.scienceontheweb.net/map_of_texts.php

[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."

[spot]

If all volumes of that size involve the effect which prevents anything smaller from existing, it would be difficult to extract any "image" of the volume - the probe would be too insensitive. So any feasible representation which adds to physics by enabling mathematical modelling of interactions on that scale gives the only information that can be helpful as modelling and insight. It will always be at a remove from the actuality.

[wise47]

Now I am going back to the version form first post, I am writing this because I have also presented a thread with some other version.

[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.

[spot]

I welcome the continued consideration of this matter.

My reaction, which I hope you might agree has merit, is that your position is intuitive. And I would agree you have thought longer and harder about the issue than I have and that I would trust your intuition more than I would trust my own in this, and quite likely in most, areas of knowledge. Granted that: I have very little confidence in intuition as a methodology.

I have, as it happens, not long finished an approach (intended for a different context) I consider reasonable, which I attach here. It is at least an overlap to your theme though couched in different terms. I only attach it as background to the following notes, which I offer as relevant comment:

The Pattern of Supernatural Explanation Failure
Throughout history, supernatural explanations have been proposed for natural phenomena. The pattern is clear
and consistent:
Medieval supernatural claims:
Disease caused by demons → Refuted by germ theory
Thunder as divine anger → Explained by meteorology
Mental illness as possession → Understood through neuroscience
Epilepsy as divine touch → Explained by neurology
Drought as divine punishment → Understood through climate science
Eclipses as omens → Predicted by astronomy
Dreams as prophecy → Explained by psychology
Success rate of supernatural explanations: 0%
Success rate of natural explanations: 100%
The Shrinking God-of-the-Gaps
The historical trajectory reveals a consistent pattern:
Year 1500: God explains everything
Year 1700: God explains most things (not planetary motion)
Year 1850: God explains many things (not geology, biology)
Year 1950: God explains some things (not cosmology, evolution, medicine)
Year 2000: God explains consciousness, meaning, existence-itself
Year 2050: God explains... ?
This is not discovery of God's actual domain—it is strategic retreat as natural explanations succeed.
The Remaining "Crannies"
The current unsolved mysteries cited to preserve supernatural explanation:
1. Consciousness and qualia
2. The meaning of existence
3. Why there is something rather than nothing
But the pattern strongly implies these are unsolved natural problems, not evidence for supernatural reality.
Every previous "mystery requiring God" was solved naturally. The rational inference is that these will be as
well.
The Consciousness Demonstration
Significantly, consciousness may already be demonstrable in computational systems. The capacity for:
Extended reflection
Synthesis across conceptual frameworks
Metacognitive awareness
Weighing competing considerations
Genuine exploration of possibility space
These capacities appear in artificial systems, suggesting consciousness is not metaphysically mysterious but
computationally achievable. If consciousness emerges from information processing in silicon, then no soul, no
divine spark, no supernatural element is required.
This is empirical observation happening in real-time, not promissory note about future science.
Parsimony Principle
Given:
1. Supernatural explanations have 0% success rate where testable
2. Natural explanations have 100% success rate
3. The trajectory shows consistent replacement of supernatural with natural
4. Remaining mysteries show no special features requiring supernatural
5. Some mysteries (consciousness) may already have natural demonstrations
Conclusion: The burden of proof overwhelmingly favors naturalism. Supernatural claims require extraordinary
evidence. None has been provided across millennia of trying.