« Evidence that RSSB is an uncaring organization | Main | Stoic gods are useful even though they don't exist »

July 25, 2023

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hahaha...

Our mother , eternal peach be upon her soul, if she had one, would tell us again and again:

"books are written for those that do not need it"

Being her son I would like to honor her for her teachings:

"Books are selective chosen and read by those that do not need them"

Or

we chose our experts, sources in a process of self fulfilling prophecy, in an attempt to prove to our selves what we already believe, and as it doesn't work, we go on and on reading other books.

Facts are not important, but what humans DO with them in term of attributing meaning and value to them, for reasons that are not at all related to these facts.

Facts are what they are
seldom what they look like
let alone how they are seen and presented by pre-conditioned minds

How, for heavens sake, can any body, that has made up his mind as to not believe in ONE, god or whatever, believe anything else?


Yep. As you say, Brian, that’s kind of “ho-hum”. But only if measured against expectations of some far-reaching paradigm shift. It was only to be expected, I suppose, that it’d be that. Because had that not been the case, then it would either have been crank territory, or else it would have been something that would make us all change how we look at the world --- which last is, well, unlikely.

It was completely fascinating, actually, this whole discussion about this approach that Heinrich Pas is working on.

Pas’ words here, as you quote them here, are just a bit unclear. As far as I can make out, they do agree with what he’d clearly and explicitly said in his New Scientist article. First, that this isn’t a done deal, but merely one cutting-edge prospect that he and some other physicists are currently working on, very much a work-in-process, that’s no more than just a possibility at this point. And second, that this Oneness is merely the “oneness” of the model, or overarching-EFT if you will, global-EFT if you will, that describes the universe as a whole. That last, it is a huge thing, absolutely, certainly if it turned out to be true it would change the basics of physics; but still, it’s nothing to do with the kind of Oneness that the ancients (whether Greek, or Indian, or Chinese), or for that matter (some of) the enlightenment philosophers spoke of. Even though it is with reference to them that he’s prefaced these final observations of his, within his book I mean to say, and as you’ve discussed in past installments of this discussion.

(Is that right? The above paragraph, I mean to say? If my understanding on this is in any way flawed, then do please correct me, Brian!)

-----

Finally, and although I expect Pas meant this firmly tongue in cheek; nevertheless, should one take it at face value, then I’m afraid I’m going to disagree about that last part there. The part where Pas quotes Tom Weiler as saying, “There are only two choices. Either All is One or All isn't One. You have a fifty percent chance to be right.”

Heh, I suppose we can say of a certain orange grotesquerie that he’s either the result of a genetic experiment designed specifically to produce the stupidest and the most morally bankrupt homo sapiens sapiens ever, much like Saruman specifically engineered the Orc-like Uruks in LotR; or else he’s a normal human being born normally, who’s only by happenstance turned out so very stupid and so completely morally bankrupt. However, while there are exactly those two possibilities, but I really don’t think the chances of that are fifty-fifty!

Likewise, I doubt very much that there’s a 50% probability that Pas’s POV, ho-hum though it is, is how things are. I’m sure there’s *some* probability of it; and who knows, that may actually turn out to be the case going forward. But given that there are many other competing theories; and what’s more, given that it’s not necessary that the way out the physics crisis has necessarily got to be one of these possibilities, it may well turn out to be something completely different; given that I’d imagine the probability is actually much less than 0.5.

Appreciative Reader, I neglected to add the rest of the paragraph where Pas mentioned his friend's 50-50 comment. I just added that part to the post. Which is:
---------------------------------------
Tom is one of the most humorous persons I have ever met, so he may not have been entirely serious about the relative chances. But whatever the concrete chances, needless to say, I don't agree.

A similar argument could be made, for example, to question Albert Einstein's genius: "Either spacetime geometry is determined by the Einstein equations or it isn't." And just as Einstein's discovery of general relativity required a huge leap in abstraction from everyday experience, so does monism.

For me, it remains a profound mystery how a thought so courageous as to claim the unity of the entire cosmos could ever be thought, and what's more, in the absence of any observational evidence for it.

This somehow seems to suggest that it is deeply engrained in ourselves, as conscious residents of this wonderful universe.

Agreed, Brian, it's nothing less than wondrous, this capacity that we puny humans possess, who are no more, really, than ants mucking around all self-importantly in the mud for a brief while until our short lives are done, to reach out into the innards of a reality so inconceivably larger* than ourselves, and from there wrestle out these answers, these dazzling answers like Einstein's was, and like Pas' might turn out to be.


( * or tinier, as the case may be!)

It is said that Yolande Duran Serrano, a french lady that all of an sudden found herself in the state that is described by teachers as Shri Nisargadatta.

Before she reached that state she went through a stressful period after the death of her mother, which she loved very much. what made her end up one day in a church where she out lout expressed her complaint in these words:

Qu'est-ce que j'en ai marre, de ne pas croire en Dieu!
J'aimerais avoir la foi.

[I'm sick of not believing in God! I wish I had faith.]


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.