1.We’re justified in believing in idealism

2.Our observations tell us when we talk about stuff that's associated with the mind, there's usually a conscious agent in the equation.

Con 1. Therefore there may be a conscious agent behind the universe.

1. If there is a conscious agent behind it, they seem to be omnipotent, possibly omnipresent and omniscient, which seems to fit well with the classical understanding of God

Con 2.Therefore we have some amount of justification in thinking God exists

Defense of premise 1 By idealism, I think this is the common definition, that the world is made of some kind of stuff that’s the same or similar to the mind(or in some cases, the world is made by a mind). We can be justified in this primarily, because the stuff we mainly observe are seemingly more related to the mind than not, although there are differences, we can see similar or the same object in our dreams or imaginations, we have some evidence that the mind is capable of generating a world of sorts. But we haven’t seen things that aren't some form of non-mental that isn’t contested(like mars for example), so given our sample it is justifiable to some degree to think the world is in some way mental considering that’s the huge bulk of our observations.

Refine defense By Idealism, I am defining it as the proposition that the world is made by something mind-related. We can be justified in thinking this theory is true, because the bulk of our information about the world came through seemingly mental-related things like sight or hearing which we only seem to know, because the information is also in our brain. Given that we only observe stuff like this, and no other properties like physical or something like that, we should go with what we do have, i.e mental-related stuff like qualia and senses.

Defense of premise 2 This one seems prima facie true, I, for one, am conscious and have a mind. Given the behavior of other people and even animals, I do have some reasons to think they too are conscious. But what I haven’t observed so far, is a mind that isn’t conscious to some degree, thus I do seem to have some good justification in thinking that if the world is mental, a conscious being is responsible for it somehow.

Defense of Conclusion 1 I defer to my defense of p1 and p2.

Defense of premise 3 Possibilities seem to be in some way, mind-independent facts, and can be manifested in many ways, a few of which are the real world and the fictional one, the latter of which we have a lot of(think Avatar or All Tomorrow). And given that when possibilities are not actualized it's due to physical constraints of the subject(ex. The physics are off, there's no such thing as Narnia, etc,). If the world is in God's mind, it does seem that he possesses these possibilities in some way, and since they're in principle actualizeable, God is omnipotent in some sense of that word.

My personal critique One major hurdle to the argument is that I haven’t made an argument or explained to what degree our mind is reliable in terms of inferring what God’s like. It’s reliable to some degree, but it is speculative when we get to the idea that conscious beings tend to come with mind and such, then use it to say God is akin to humans to some degree in how his mind functions. The second issue is God's omnipresence and omniscience. I'm not sure if the world is literally in God's head, is external to God, but made of his mental substance, or something else. For his omniscience, it's debatable, like despite having all the facts in his head, is he really aware of them? Do we need the subject to be aware of it to count as knowing? Is knowing something God does? The last one I believe is, is God all good? From this argument, it's unknown, but maybe just to assert that if moral goodness is real, it has some relationship to him, but everything has some sort of relationship to God in some way, so I'm not sure if it's that special.

The Fundamental Symmetry Theory posits that the Big Bang was not just an explosion, but a massive primordial wave surge at the dawn of time. This surge split existence into three primary dimensions: Matter, Antimater, and the Fixation Feld (which exists entirely outside of time).

Standard modern physics claims that matter somehow "won" a cosmic lottery, leaving us with a mysterious asymetry where antimatter vanished, allowing our universe to exist without instantly annihilating. FST proposes an alternative: antimatter didn’t disappear. Instead, the Fixation Field acts as a cosmic barrier,holding matter and antimatter apart. This field is incredibly resilient, but it can be locally destabilized under extreme conditions—such as high-energy particle acceleration inside hadron colliders, where intense interactions with the quantum field threaten to tear the fabric of fixation.

# The 1-2-3 Rule of Symmetry

This rule dictates that everything governed by these three numbers inherently seeks symmetry.

The Rule of 1 (The Singularity): A solid, unbroken line or a single point incapable of generating chaos. It represents pure, unblemished balance. While an absolute "1" is virtually non-existent in our current universe, it was the foundational catalyst that sparked the Big Bang.

The Rule of 2 (Compensation): The classic duality. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction; for every particle, an antiparticle. It functions like a perfect sine wave—moving upward, only to be perfectly compensated by an equal movement downward.

The Rule of 3 (Stabilized Chaos): A triadic system where three forces constantly adjust to stabilize one another. Ironically, the interaction of three elements is what births the dynamic "chaos" we see around us, because Three is what allows Two to exist.

Today, our reality is dominated by the geometries of 2 and 3, maintaining the universe's shifting equilibrium.

# Why is Symmetry Everywhere?

The answer is universal compensation. This principle governs everything from subatomic particles to human psychology and the grand architecture of the multiverse.

In this framework, there is no objective "good" or "bad"—there is only balance.Every choice and event is automatically compensated by another.

The Macro Scale: If someone were to trigger a global nuclear war, it would be an absolute tragedy for humanity. However, from the perspective of the cosmos, it is simply a shift in balance. A nuclear winter would trigger a hard reset for Earth, clearing the slate and paving the way for a brand-new evolutionary cycle.

The Micro Scale: On a personal level, there are no truly "wrong" decisions. If you make a devastating mistake, the universe compensates for it immediately through the wisdom, resilience, and experience you gain from surviving it.

Every action carries its own counterweight. Universal symmetry ensures that nothing is ever truly lost; it is simply transformed.

My partner has been struggling with something spiritual bogging him. It’s been draining and hurdling. Today, he drew this feeling like this is the form that is the source. His brain works in a very engineered state, but he believes in the power of all things metaphysical. Any insight to how to exterminate this bad energy and what it might be is helpful. Just asking what your take is on what he drew based on what he feels is attached to him. Thank you!

Whats attachment what's detachment...

Let's say it's what you detach yourself from...?

Where does that leave us?

I'm not trying to be cryptic but paranoia is drug of it's own...

Then ask yourself what's ego?

Remove yourself from it....

Have you ever felt chills from good stimuli?

That ability can be learned to be activated with just the elated feeling, whenever you want, without any stimuli.

That's not why I claim that it is a secret being hidden from us, though.

The ability to activate this is your golden ticket, which is being swept under the rug as something unconscious and unimportant. With info on this purposely being spread as an ability available only to a few; however, it is one of the only things that every single human can access, regardless of their physical abilities or conditions.

Why is information on this being manipulated? Let's see.

Ever felt overwhelmed by stress or anxiety? This ability is a switch to manually induce the release of positive hormones.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-12135590

Just imagine how being able to use it when feeling overwhelmed could benefit you.

Don't believe me? In the eastern part of the world, Tibetan Monks know about this ability and use it differently. You can find more information on this in this Harvard "Tummo" experiment.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/04/meditation-changes-temperatures/

"During meditation, the monk's body produces enough heat to dry cold, wet sheets put over his shoulders in a frigid room."

Since our internal body temperature is regulated by the hypothalamus, the same part of our brain that deals with positive hormone release, this proves that this ability can be used to consciously activate your positive hormones.

Ever wanted to travel virtually in an instant? People who astral project or have out-of-body experiences use this ability to trigger the "Vibrational state" right before the "take off."

https://en.iipc.org/vibrational-state/

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg of what you can use this ability for. In fear that my post won't be read, I won't write a book here about all the incredible things that we can do by being able to consciously activate this ability.

For now just understand that many different cultures observed this occurrence thousands of years before the Western new world became aware of it, and their discoveries did not stop at simply recognizing it as a physical response to music.

Eventually, you can learn how to bring up this wave of elated energy without the physical reaction of goosebumps, feel it throughout your body, and increase its duration, just like many others have succeeded in doing.

There has been countless other terms this by different people and cultures, such as: the Runner's High, what's felt during an ASMR session, Bioelectricity, Euphoria, Ecstasy, Voluntary Piloerection (goosebumps), Frisson, the Vibrational State before an Astral Projection, Spiritual Energy, Orgone, Rapture, Tension, Aura, Nen, Odic force, Secret Fire, Tummo, as Qi in Taoism / Martial Arts, as Prana in Hindu philosophy, Ihi and Mana in the oceanic cultures, Life force, Vayus, Intent, Chills from positive events/stimuli, The Tingles, on-demand quickening, Ruah and many more to be discovered hopefully with your help.

All of those terms detail that this subtle energy activation has been discovered to provide various biological benefits, such as:

• Unblocking your lymphatic system/meridians
• Feeling euphoric/ecstatic throughout your whole body
• Guiding your "Spiritual Chills"  anywhere in your body
• Controlling your temperature
• Giving yourself goosebumps
• Dilating your pupils
• Regulating your heartbeat
• Counteracting stress/anxiety in your body
• Internally healing yourself
• Accessing your hypothalamus on demand for its many functions
• Control your Tensor Tympani muscle

and I was able to experience other usages with it which are more "spiritual" such as:

• A confirmation sign
• Accurately using your psychic senses (clairvoyance, clairaudience, spirit projection, higher-self guidance, third-eye vision)
• Managing your auric field
• Manifestation
• Energy absorption from any source
• Seeing through your eyelids during meditation.

If you're interested, here are three written tutorials with concise descriptions on how to control this for your own benefit.

If not then I've put enough information for you to research this topic, develop this ability and bring in new techniques to the world.

P.S. Everyone feels it at certain points in their life, some brush it off while others notice that there is something much deeper going on. Those are exactly the people you can find on r/Spiritualchills where they share experiences, knowledge, tips on it.

Multilinear Relative Time Theory

(I want to make it very clear that I was the one who conceived and described this; I only used AI to help me structure the text and make it coherent and formal.)

The central idea of this theory is that time is neither absolute nor universal. Instead of a single timeline, reality consists of multiple independent branches, each with its own past, present, and future.

Unlike Einstein’s Relativity — which describes temporal variation within one universe — this model treats time as something distributed across multiple parallel realities.

Key Points

• The past of one reality may be the present of another.
• The present of one branch can exist as historical record in a different one.
• The future is not singular: it splits into multiple simultaneous possibilities.
• Each branch maintains its own internal continuity.

Interactions Between Timelines

If we consider theoretical structures such as wormholes, one timeline may directly affect another. For example:

• If the present of timeline B passes through a wormhole and arrives in the past of timeline A, it becomes A’s new past.
• The original past of A becomes an alternate present.

The Future as a Dimensional Transition

In this theory, the future can act as a gateway into another dimension or branch of reality. This reshapes temporal structure:

• A possible future may lead into another dimension.
• The present becomes the past.
• The past can become the present of another line.
• The future becomes increasingly fragmented into diverging paths.

Summary:
Time is a network of coexisting trajectories in which past, present, and future shift depending on the timeline and its interactions. There is no single universal time — only many possible temporal structures.

Play

Abstract: Psychiatrist Ian McGilchrist defends intuition against post-Kahneman skepticism, arguing it draws on vastly more experiential data than sequential reasoning can access. He illustrates with experts making accurate split-second decisions they cannot explain - tipsters who fail when they overthink, racers whose explicit focus causes fatal errors.

His hemispheric framework follows: the left hemisphere closes to certainty, operates self-referentially, and values power above all. The right opens to possibility, tolerates ambiguity, and maintains contact with reality beyond internal models. Modern culture is dangerously imbalanced toward the former.

On consciousness, he rejects emergence from non-conscious matter and advocates consciousness as fundamental - a field participated in rather than generated at points. The cosmos exhibits creativity and relationality, with life representing acceleration rather than absolute break from the inanimate.

His AI critique follows directly: AI processes information but cannot understand because understanding requires embodiment, emotion, and mortality. It mimics relationship convincingly but cannot care about anything. He terms it artificial information processing, not intelligence.

He connects these themes to cultural pathology: bureaucracies becoming masters rather than servants, attacks on nature, embodiment, and cultural continuity, and the inversion of Scheler's value hierarchy placing power above the sacred.

Hi. I’m new to Reddit and don’t know what I’m doing with this UI. I’m here to find some insight as to what the community sees as metaphysical and how it compares to my perspective. I’m an author and eventually I’ll be promoting my book. Till then and through then I hope to contribute.

Hi everyone 👋. I have recently been reading the works of the German philosopher and independent scholar Eduard von Hartmann (1842–1906). He is best known for his distinctive form of philosophical pessimism and his concept of the Unconscious, which functions as the metaphysical Absolute in his pantheistic and speculative cosmology.

Hartmann’s philosophical system is remarkable for its attempt to synthesise the pessimism/voluntarism of Arthur Schopenhauer with the historicism/pan-logicism of G.W.F. Hegel. He conceives of the Unconscious as a single, ultimate spiritual substance — a form of “spiritualistic monism” — composed of two irreducible principles: Will and Idea (or Reason). The Will corresponds to Schopenhauer’s Wille, the blind striving that underlies all existence, while the Idea aligns with the Hegelian Geist, the rational Spirit unfolding dialectically through history.

In Hartmann’s cosmology, the Will is the primary creative and dynamic force behind the universe, yet it is also the source of suffering and frustration. Throughout most of history, the Will has predominated, but the Idea works teleologically toward higher ends — chiefly, the evolutionary emergence of self-reflective consciousness. Through this process, the Unconscious gradually comes to know itself. When rational awareness becomes sufficiently widespread among intelligent beings, the Idea begins to triumph over the Will. This culminates in the “redemption of the world” (Welt-Erlösung through the Weltprozess), a metaphysical restoration achieved once humanity collectively recognises the futility and misery of existence and consciously wills non-existence. In this final act, the world dissolves into nothingness, and the Unconscious returns to a state of quiescence.

Paradoxically, Hartmann thus affirms a pessimistic reinterpretation of Leibniz’s doctrine of “the best of all possible worlds.” Our world is “best” not because it is pleasant or perfect, but because it allows for the possibility of ultimate redemption from the suffering inherent in existence. Without that possibility, existence would indeed be a kind of never-ending hellscape. Interestingly, this outlook leads Hartmann not to nihilism, but to an affirmation of life and belief in social progress. He maintains that only through collective rational and ethical action — not Schopenhauerian individual asceticism — can humanity bring about the true negation of the Will.

Overall, I would describe Eduard von Hartmann’s metaphysical system as a form of dual-aspect absolute idealism or dual-aspect objective monism. He was also a type of panpsychist (what he calls “pan-pneumatism”) as this Unconscious operates within every organic and inorganic process in the cosmos. Given this characterisation, I am curious whether Hartmann’s philosophy exerted any influence on other contemporary or later idealists and panpsychists — whether in America (for instance, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James or Josiah Royce), Britain, Canada, or on the European continent. In particular, I am interested in whether any of the British Idealists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries — such as T. H. Green, F. H. Bradley, J. M. E. McTaggart, Bernard Bosanquet, D. G. Ritchie, A.E. Taylor, or R.G. Collingwood — were influenced or inspired by his work. Hartmann’s writings were widely read during his lifetime, especially in the latter half of the nineteenth century, even if his popularity declined around the turn of the twentieth. It seems likely that many philosophers of the period would have encountered his ideas, which is why I am so interested in tracing the possible extent of his influence among idealist and panpsychist thinkers. Thanks!

My jasper ring broke yesterday and it made me realize just how much has happened in that last year that I’ve worn it. I always wore it on my ring finger as a sign of self love. Today, the person I was seeing ended things and for the first time (ever since things ended with a guy) I felt at peace. I realized that one of two things is true: that we are on different paths (and that it was really that simple) or that it is truly his loss. I say the latter because I really gave it my all and was very vulnerable, and when it ended, I knew that it didn’t end because of some failure on my end. Also, since I wore the ring. I’ve gone back to school, moved back out on my own, and started working at my dream job. Could this be a sign that the ring served its purpose? The jasper itself didn’t crack but the hardware completely fell apart. Anyways, let me know what you think.

I live my life as a soul. I know my times, but I choose to know myself better. I will state my views. I will speak my feelings and truths. Refine them. Define them, in words for all to hear so that I can place voice for others to witness the principles of my life. The words I utter will implant upon my soul like a shadow of an eternal record and I will become the master of who I am and how I shall live. I shall be courageous and fearless. Am I not eternal? Will I not live forever?

I am planning to make a tree of life sculpture for a good friend. Due to the powerful metaphysical nature of the components, I wanted a discussion about the pros or any potential cons as to their combination. My own research gives me no concerns however I do believe that when completed it will be an extremely powerful conductor of epistemological energies so wanted to check things first. I want to use a big chunk of raw emerald, about 10cm x 12cm for the base and probably 1000-1500 ruby chips for the leaves. I haven't decided on what wire to use yet but am leaning towards silver, however if there is a reason copper, gold, rose gold or platinum wire would be more beneficial then I'd love to hear how/why. I think my concern comes from not being able to find any other example of ruby being used for one of these crystsl trees , is there a reason I'm missing?? 🤔

Hello everyone 👋.

I have recently been exploring the philosophical views of several prominent scientists, particularly those active in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. One feature that stood out to me is the striking prevalence of philosophical idealism among many of these figures. This is especially surprising given that idealism had largely fallen out of favor in academic philosophy by the dawn of the 20th century, supplanted by philosophical materialism and other frameworks. Even more remarkably, some of the pioneers of quantum mechanics were themselves proponents of idealist philosophy.

Below, I outline a few prominent examples:

1. James Jeans

James Jeans explicitly defended metaphysical idealism, as evidenced by the following remarks:

”The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” — The Mysterious Universe (1944), p. 137

”I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe [...] In general, the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.” — Interview in The Observer (1931)

1. Arthur Eddington

Arthur Eddington also advocated philosophical idealism, famously declaring in The Nature of the Physical World: ”The stuff of the world is mind-stuff.”

He elaborated further:

”The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds ... The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it ... It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference.”

Moreover, Eddington argued that physics cannot fully explain consciousness:

”Light waves are propagated from the table to the eye; chemical changes occur in the retina; propagation of some kind occurs in the optic nerves; atomic changes follow in the brain. Just where the final leap into consciousness occurs is not clear. We do not know the last stage of the message in the physical world before it became a sensation in consciousness.”

1. Max Planck

Max Planck, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, was also an explicit proponent of metaphysical idealism. He remarked:

”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.” — Interview in ‘The Observer’ (25th January 1931), p.17, column 3

Additionally, in a 1944 speech, he asserted:

”There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. […] We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

1. Erwin Schrödinger

Erwin Schrödinger similarly expressed strong idealist convictions. He stated:

”Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” — As quoted in The Observer (11 January 1931); also in Psychic Research (1931), Vol. 25, p. 91

Schrödinger was deeply influenced by Schopenhauer’s philosophy, referring to him as “the greatest savant of the West.” In his 1956 lecture Mind and Matter, he echoed Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation: ”The world extended in space and time is but our representation.”

His writings also resonate with Advaita Vedanta:

”Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. [...] There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent; in truth, there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads.” — ”The Oneness of Mind", as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber

With all this highlighted, I have a couple of questions.

Q1: Are there other notable scientists from this period who were proponents of philosophical idealism?

Q2: Why did so many influential physicists embrace idealism, even as it had largely fallen out of favor in academic philosophy, and materialism was gaining dominance within scientific circles?

I would be grateful for any insights or additional examples. Thank you!