Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes. You need to distinguish between the micro and macro. Mr Can is blabbing on like an undergraduate who has reached the part in Hume's Enquiry into Human Understanding where he lays out the problem of causation, believing an 18th century empiricist to be authoritative. Don't get me wrong, Hume is a great hero of mine. He is the author of one of my favourite philosophical jokes: religion is reliant on at least one miracle - that anyone believes it. I even made a pilgrimage to his mausoleum in Edinburgh; though I doubt I would have made the trip, were my daughter not studying Chinese at the University.

Is Hume a “great hero” solely on the basis of his humor? (And why do you people continually misspell humor as ‘humour’?)

At his mausoleum did any fReAKy things happen?

What would you say is the upshot for we of the Earth now apprised of the a-causal nature of reality? What bearing does it have on, say, ethics? What does “understanding quantum physics” portend for the life of man?

If you make a separation (if quantum physics makes a separation) between micro and macro, I assume you see us all as existing on a micro level, yes? And you are saying that at a macro level weird, unlikely and uncharacteristic things happen, is that right?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's see if you can explain how quantum theory undermines faith in causality.

You don't need me:

So even the best human knowing (if we take science to be exactly that) is probabilistic, not absolute.

So...your idea of quantum theory is that it is the same as probabilistic epistemology?

An empty vessel, indeed.

I kind of suspected that. Good to have it confirmed, though.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Then there is its metaphysical edition which has has very little relation to biblical lore. Instead it becomes a quest to discover the cosmic entrails of a hidden god directed more by its ambiguity within the cosmos than by any scriptural denotations and deformations which exist solely as subservient metaphors of a fixed belief system which inevitably remains static and dogmatic.

That could not be entirely right, M. Dubious, because the Biblical Story is, perhaps, comparable to what we might see were we trapped down there in Plato’s cave. The Story holds a metaphysic, it presents a metaphysic in a form a simple human mind could understand.

So, the question of relation is one of degree, don’t you thinkest? There can be Stories which capture or contain metaphysical diagrams very accurately, but others that are misleading.

The Teachings of Alexis Jacobi: do you see them as clarifying important — crucial — metaphysical truths needed by humanity struggling mightily at this terrifying juncture, or as obscurant clap-trap? Be honest, Dubious, I can take it …

[Will Bouwman]

Thank you Gus, I am. I would ask how you are, but I don't really care.

How terrible of you, Will. I genuinely wish you the best and think rather highly of you.

Gus, I'm disappointed. I thought you had a fücking backbone.

Calling you Wilbur Boneman is tit-for-tat since you keep calling me “Gus” (from Gustav Bjornstrand).

You don't say.

Many of you act like girls! Men fight and insult even, and then everything is still cool …

Well, it's cool with me. You're not acting like a girl, are you Gus?

Oh well, have it your way …

Okie-dokie.

[Will Bouwman]

Let's see if you can explain how quantum theory undermines faith in causality.

You don't need me:

So even the best human knowing (if we take science to be exactly that) is probabilistic, not absolute.

So...your idea of quantum theory is that it is the same as probabilistic epistemology?

No, you're just shit at logic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You Englishmen, my word. Are you naturally all grumps?

[Alexis Jacobi]

C’mon Wilbur. I really want to know what the implications are for us as a result of the understandings that quantum physics and mechanics brings or reveals. To overturn causation seems … pretty consequential.

Speak, Muse!

[Will Bouwman]

Yes. You need to distinguish between the micro and macro. Mr Can is blabbing on like an undergraduate who has reached the part in Hume's Enquiry into Human Understanding where he lays out the problem of causation, believing an 18th century empiricist to be authoritative. Don't get me wrong, Hume is a great hero of mine. He is the author of one of my favourite philosophical jokes: religion is reliant on at least one miracle - that anyone believes it. I even made a pilgrimage to his mausoleum in Edinburgh; though I doubt I would have made the trip, were my daughter not studying Chinese at the University.

Is Hume a “great hero” solely on the basis of his humor?

No. Hume was a proper smarty-pants.

(And why do you people continually misspell humor as ‘humour’?)

To upset the humourless.

At his mausoleum did any fReAKy things happen?

Naw, I think he's been dead too long.

What would you say is the upshot for we of the Earth now apprised of the a-causal nature of reality?

Ah well, you're doing the Mr Can fück awful logic squawk. It does not follow from our not being able to establish causality at the quantum level, that the universe is not causal. Again Bell had a theorem.

What bearing does it have on, say, ethics? What does “understanding quantum physics” portend for the life of man?

Nothing. The vast majority of people have little or no exposure to quantum mechanics and live their life with no appreciable disadvantage.

If you make a separation (if quantum physics makes a separation) between micro and macro, I assume you see us all as existing on a micro level, yes? And you are saying that at a macro level weird, unlikely and uncharacteristic things happen, is that right?

Well, you have it arse about tit, but yeah.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't need me:

So...your idea of quantum theory is that it is the same as probabilistic epistemology?

No, you're just shit at logic.

And yet...you still can't explain what you, yourself, meant by quantum theory undermining causality. You can't even try, apparently.

[Will Bouwman]

So...your idea of quantum theory is that it is the same as probabilistic epistemology?

No, you're just shit at logic.

And yet...you still can't explain what you, yourself, meant by quantum theory undermining causality. You can't even try, apparently.

Get back to me when you understand superposition.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What would you say is the upshot for we of the Earth now apprised of the a-causal nature of reality?

Ah well, you're doing the Mr Can fück awful logic squawk. It does not follow from our not being able to establish causality at the quantum level, that the universe is not causal. Again Bell had a theorem.

No, because quantum theory is not my bag. I do not see its relation to spiritual commitment (as I understand that discipline and area of concern).

And you have clarified that knowledge of quantum physics and mechanics effectively changes nothing for man on this wondrous planet (in the day to day sense).

And I realized that I had the “tit” where the “ass” should be.

Thank you most cordially for your responses.

(When I visited Hume’s tomb he started rapping on the inside in Morse code. No one was around so I opened the lid and me and Hume had a very productive conversation. And as I had a flask with cognac he suggested we toast “custom & habit” which I admit threw me off a bit. He was fAsCiNaTeD with my iPhone! And very curious about what had become of America! Oh Wilbur, I guess I just have all the luck, eh?)

[Immanuel Can]

No, you're just shit at logic.

And yet...you still can't explain what you, yourself, meant by quantum theory undermining causality. You can't even try, apparently.

Get back to me when you understand superposition.

Well, the posture of "superiority" is failing to hide your lack of an argument.

There's no link between quantum theory and a denial of causality. And if there were, there would be no such thing as science, or, for that matter, even technology. Every event would simply be a quantum singularity, with absolutely no way to recreate any particular effect.

So you're just whistling in the dark.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, you're just shit at logic.

And yet...you still can't explain what you, yourself, meant by quantum theory undermining causality. You can't even try, apparently.

Get back to me when you understand superposition.

What does it mean for us that “multiple realities exist … until our observation forces a choice” (at the micro level of course!)

[Dubious]

Then there is its metaphysical edition which has has very little relation to biblical lore. Instead it becomes a quest to discover the cosmic entrails of a hidden god directed more by its ambiguity within the cosmos than by any scriptural denotations and deformations which exist solely as subservient metaphors of a fixed belief system which inevitably remains static and dogmatic.

That could not be entirely right, M. Dubious, because the Biblical Story is, perhaps, comparable to what we might see were we trapped down there in Plato’s cave. The Story holds a metaphysic, it presents a metaphysic in a form a simple human mind could understand.

So, the question of relation is one of degree, don’t you thinkest? There can be Stories which capture or contain metaphysical diagrams very accurately, but others that are misleading.

The Teachings of Alexis Jacobi: do you see them as clarifying important — crucial — metaphysical truths needed by humanity struggling mightily at this terrifying juncture, or as obscurant clap-trap? Be honest, Dubious, I can take it …

As usual, you manage to explain nothing except to demonstrate you're outstanding superiority in explaining nothing.

What is the metaphysic the bible holds?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is the metaphysic the Bible holds?

The culmination of the Bible is contained in the New Testament, in my ultra-humble view. And the metaphysical implications expressed in those writings should be clear to someone with your, albeit afflicted, capacity to reason. I have just expounded to IC not too far above a good deal of that. Were you enjoying your siesta?

To explain something, dear one, there must be someone “at home” to grok it. I see a glimmer through your window. Its orangish and rather pale. Is that you smoking a cigarette or your mind at work?!