Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism

[cpuproc68]

Galactic Model 2 corresponds to the idealism and realism, where dominant is cosmical space (black hole) with the primeval body which was beginning of the cosmos (singularity inside the black hole).

[cpuproc68]

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.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Said a whole bunch of stuff.

But first of all, no one can prove that there in such a thing as eternity. The main current theory is that the universe is expanding, and the speed is increasing, so heat death. So it surely seems that eternity is off the list. Furthermore no one has ever or will never live long enough for that empirical data to show up, so you're starting off on the wrong foot with a falsehood. Not a smart choice. It would seem to indicate that the rest can only be more of the same type words (falsehoods).

[Belinda]

Said a whole bunch of stuff.

But first of all, no one can prove that there in such a thing as eternity. The main current theory is that the universe is expanding, and the speed is increasing, so heat death. So it surely seems that eternity is off the list. Furthermore no one has ever or will never live long enough for that empirical data to show up, so you're starting off on the wrong foot with a falsehood. Not a smart choice. It would seem to indicate that the rest can only be more of the same type words (falsehoods).

The most effective definition of Eternity is that eternity is a condition of timeless, spaceless, and forceless. Quantum entanglement has already proved that space does not exist.

(Quantum entanglement is starting to see real-world use — mainly in finance for ultra-secure communication.
Banks like ICBC and European partners are testing entanglement-based QKD to protect interbank data.
True quantum computing for trading is still experimental.)

[cpuproc68]

The most effective definition of Eternity is that eternity is a condition of timeless, spaceless

I agree.

[Age]

Said a whole bunch of stuff.

But first of all, no one can prove that there in such a thing as eternity.

But, it has, already, been proved irrefutably True.

Why do you believe and claim some thing that you could not prove True.

The main current theory is that the universe is expanding, and the speed is increasing, so heat death. So it surely seems that eternity is off the list.

LOL
LOL
LOL 'The main 'current' theory is ..., so the opposite surely seems off the list'. Could these people gain more closed views and perspectives?

Furthermore no one has ever or will never live long enough for that empirical data to show up, so you're starting off on the wrong foot with a falsehood.

No one has nor could ever live long enough for the empirical data that the Universe began, either. So, are you starting off on the wrong foot with a falsehood, as well?

If no, then why not?

Not a smart choice. It would seem to indicate that the rest can only be more of the same type words (falsehoods).

'This one' has gotten so far off track, here.

[cpuproc68]

My ideomaterialism is neither more idealistic nor more materialistic.

[cpuproc68]

I have now returned to a more idealistic version.

[cpuproc68]

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.

[cpuproc68]

I have now returned to the version half to half.

[cpuproc68]

As I said, I returned to the fifty-fifty version, which means that considerations of the more idealistic version can be considered outdated.

[cpuproc68]

Now I am going back to more idealstic version.

[cpuproc68]

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.