SBF, and Brokeback, I will respond when I can. It might be a couple of days before I can.
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness 169 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Take your time, I hope I sparked your interest in the subject and you take a closer look at some of the ideas expressed. It's a deep subject that many people are interested in.
The mystics have been saying thousands of years that everything is just one thing. Or as Ken Wilber says: 'just one taste'.
I know he's fantasy, but lets go with your delusions for the conversation). Let's face it, everything he's ever touched has been a disaster.
I see quite a mix of disasters and victories, not just one or the other. I get it that you hate God. And you call me delusional?
I have struggled to get the time to get back to this thread. I know it is old, but I said I would respond.
The background is that 17 days earlier in this thread, SBF said:
This supposes that physical material is the fundamental component of reality. This is the dominant view in our time, but it is not the only way of seeing the world. An alternative is the view that consciousness is fundamental and that we create the world through our perception.
I think there is growing support for the idea that consciousness is basic to the universe itself and does not just arise magically in the brain from nowhere.
He adds a video from Donald Hoffman, who apparently has a Ph.D in "quantative psychology" from M.I.T. For those who wonder what that means, here is what Wikipedia says:
I saw the video and said this, in part:
Hoffman then uses something equivalent to a "god of the gaps" argument. He says in effect that science can't explain as yet how neurons in the brain produce consciousness. He then proposes to turn it all on his head and start with consciousness as central to the universe, derive new laws of Physics, and hopes to mathematically re-derive concepts such as string theory and quantum mechanics. (He mentions those terms, but I wonder if he even knows what they mean.) In the process, some impressive images and videos are shown, but absolutely no maths, observations or science is used to back this idea up in any way, whatsoever.
SBF responds with two more videos frm Donald Hoffman, and stated in part:
His academic credentials appear impressive. Are you really confident you understand quantum mechanics and string theory better than he does?
I responded in part:
That is a red herring; I didn't claim to. (In fact I don't understand "string theory" at all.) Hoffman tossed those terms out very flippantly in the first video. Hence I wondered.
It is not a red herring because you critiqued Hoffman’s use of language in terms which implied that he either did not understand what he was talking about or that he was misleading his audience in the way he was using scientific terms. In order for you to be able to make that judgement you would need to understand the terms at least as well as he does. Otherwise how would you know that he misused the language?
There is other stuff in this thread I would deal with, but I don't have the time.
I do not have to prove that I have equal or superior knowledge of either string theory and quantum mechanics, before I am allowed to wonder if he knows what they mean. I also pointed out why I wondered.
1. If a financial advisor told me that he had a foolproof scheme that would double my money every three years, I would be entitled to wonder whether it was legit. I am allowed to "wonder" about the legitimacy of the scheme, irrespective of whether I myself was a qualified economist, merchant banker, etc. I don't have to prove I can match the financial advisor's knowledge before I am allowed to "wonder".
2. If I went to see a lawyer about a fence dispute with my neighbour, and the lawyer kept mentioning Magna Carta but without connecting it to the context of the fencing obligations, I don't need to be a Professor of Constitutional Law before I am allowed to "wonder" whether this lawyer knows what he/she is talking about.
We do not know what expertise Donald Hoffman has in either quantum mechanics or string theory. He is a "popular science author", according to Wikipedia, and he certainly talks a good game. However, there is nothing in his academic background to suggest that he has any expertise in these fields whatsoever. So, without knowing what his actual level of knowledge, how could I, or anyone else, demonstrate "confident... [we] understand quantum mechanics and string theory better than he does". Does that meant nobody can ever comment?
Also, by your logic, SBF, unless you can demonstrate that your actual level of knowledge is better than mine, you have no right to question me on the topic. (I stress that that is not my position, but it IS the logical consequence of your logic.)
If superior knowledge (JW epi gnosis?) quantum physics and the like is what allows one to “know” god then we are ever doomed to the rule of a priestly class.
When l left the Organization the elders asked me if l thought l was smarter than the Bethel folk. I told them that with my common sense and the contradictions plain to see l could not believe what they wanted.
The reflexive teaching of the Golden Rule does not even require literacy to profoundly enlighten. Pleasure and pain are not too complex. We can think about it. Moreover we can feel it.
A natural dawn. Sex. A birth. A death . A mother’s milk. On and on.
maybe it is too easy.
Wow did we deviate from the theme or what?
Anyway back to the theme "Sovereignty Of Universe On Trial" and I would respectfully say a resounding No! Sovereignty of the universe can not be put on trial who would be the judge and what possibly could be the sentence imposed? Either you're the Sovereign or not the Sovereign there are no in-betweens case closed, no need for a trial by peers.
Jehovah and Satan can arm wrestle all they want there is no bet, no contest, no final outcome, it's just delusional hooey from a bunch of clowns who think they are going to rule the earth once they get to heaven.
shepherdless, if you asserted a financial adviser had used the word “asset” wrongly, or a lawyer had used the word “discovery” wrongly, it would be reasonable to ask what the correct definition is and how they used the word wrongly. If you cannot do this, then on what basis can you say they used the words wrongly?
I’m sorry when you said “I wonder if he even knows what the terms mean”. I really thought you were implying you had some good reason to suppose he was not using the words correctly, and that you could enlighten me about where he had gone wrong. I was ready to learn something.
I didn’t imagine it was an idle statement of innocent wonder about the world. Such as “I wonder if there’s a train somewhere that is three and half minutes late”.
Maybe Hoffmann used the words correctly or maybe he didn’t. But seriously, if there is no good reason for suspecting one way or the other, or we are not in a position to say, then what’s the point of bringing it up?
Like I said, there is circumstantial evidence to suppose he is uses his terminology correctly, in that there is many videos of him discussing his ideas with other smart people from various backgrounds including Dennett and Murray. If he was throwing around quantum theories and string theories Chopra style, you’d think someone would have pointed it out.
Post appeared hours later and can’t edit for mistakes:
Like I said, there is circumstantial evidence to suppose that he uses his terminology correctly, in that there are many videos of him discussing his ideas with other smart people from various backgrounds, including Dennett and Murray. If he was throwing around quantum theories and string theories Chopra-style, you’d think someone would have pointed it out.