Page 4 of 4
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2025 1:44 pm
by 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).
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2025 5:41 am
by 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.
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2025 5:59 am
by SpheresOfBalance
cpuproc68 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 2:40 pm
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).
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2025 9:17 am
by Belinda
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sun Oct 26, 2025 5:59 am
cpuproc68 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 2:40 pm
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.)
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2025 10:31 am
by cpuproc68
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 26, 2025 9:17 am
The most effective definition of Eternity is that eternity is a condition of timeless, spaceless
I agree.
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2025 1:02 pm
by Age
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sun Oct 26, 2025 5:59 am
cpuproc68 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 2:40 pm
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.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sun Oct 26, 2025 5:59 am
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?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sun Oct 26, 2025 5:59 am
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?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sun Oct 26, 2025 5:59 am
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.
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2025 12:26 pm
by cpuproc68
My ideomaterialism is neither more idealistic nor more materialistic.
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 5:24 pm
by cpuproc68
I have now returned to a more idealistic version.
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2025 12:03 pm
by 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.
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2025 3:55 pm
by cpuproc68
I have now returned to the version half to half.
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2025 5:22 pm
by cpuproc68
As I said, I returned to the fifty-fifty version, which means that considerations of the more idealistic version can be considered outdated.
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:19 pm
by cpuproc68
Now I am going back to more idealstic version.
Re: Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2025 1:52 am
by 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.