Philosophy Now Forum

Fletcher Radcliffe wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 9:14 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:59 pm It's a question that never fails to fascinate and frustrate in equal measure. Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

And yet, so many religious doctrines cling to the idea of free will as if it’s a gift from their deity, a cornerstone of moral responsibility. But let’s face it: free will, as traditionally understood, is about as plausible as a flat Earth. It defies the very laws of physics and neuroscience.

Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist? Could it be that religious institutions thrive on the illusion of free will because it allows them to enforce moral codes, assign blame, and justify eternal rewards or punishments? After all, a deterministic universe leaves no room for sin, no room for divine judgment, and no room for the comforting, if delusional, notion that we control our destiny.

Let’s unpack this. How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws? Why do they resist scientific findings, like the absence of free will, that challenge these beliefs? And what does it say about the human condition that so many prefer comforting illusions to uncomfortable truths?

I’d love to hear your thoughts—especially if you think there’s a way to bridge this gap between religious belief and scientific reality.

Many religious people don't reject science but interpret findings through their beliefs. The tension often arises when science challenges ideas like free will, which is central to moral responsibility and divine judgment in many religions. For many, free will provides comfort and meaning, offering a sense of control and purpose. Some religious thinkers reconcile this with science by embracing compatibilism, which suggests free will and determinism can coexist. Ultimately, the gap between religion and science is often about emotional comfort and control, and bridging it may require understanding both perspectives.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 4:25 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

Seeds's nonsense aside where we can get a Ferrari out of the wavefunction of a potato.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 6:54 pm The religious can forever be preoccupied with things that don't exist. Others have better things to do.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 9:25 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 4:03 pm
Henry, let’s get something straight: you’re not “opposing me.” You’re opposing reality—cause, effect, physics, neuroscience, and everything else that makes sense of the world without invoking ghosts or cosmic whispers....

...your whole post reeks of projection. You accuse me of being in “the void,” but you're the one terrified of a world that doesn’t bend to human fantasy. You're so afraid of determinism that you’d rather invent metaphysical fluff than deal with the simple, humbling truth: we are caused, through and through. That doesn’t make us meaningless. It makes us real.

So no—I’m not in a pit. I’m standing on solid ground....

And right there, BigMike (in that enlarged and bolded last sentence), is where you demonstrate that you just haven't gone deep enough into the study and exploration of the workings of the universe.

For it is obvious that your entire focus is on the thin (and outer) "veneer" of reality...

(of which physicist David Bohm calls the "Explicate Order")

...while completely ignoring what Bohm calls the "Implicate Order."

And the point is that by ignoring the "Implicate Order" of reality,...

(or at least by not recognizing and emphasizing the importance of its "noumenal-like" relationship to the "Explicate Order")

...you present yourself as seeming to be completely oblivious to the fact that the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on...

(at least according to certain interpretations of quantum physics)

...is nothing more than a "holographic-like" projection from a deeper level of reality that Bohm not only calls the "Implicate Order," but he also calls it the "Holomovement."

Bohm calls it the "Holomovement" because it is theorized...

(via experiment, and by reason of the implications of Schrödinger's equation)

...to consist of moving and roiling...

(holographic-like, as in interpenetrating/entangled/superpositioned, yet highly correlated)

...patterns of energy and information that underpin and delineate the very structure and phenomenal appearance of the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on that, again, according to certain interpretations of quantum physics,...

...might not even exist as "...solid ground..." were it not for the presence of consciousness "explicating" its phenomenal features into 3-D reality from the patterns of information.

And the fact that you place so little importance on the role that minds and their conscious "agents" play in your deterministic theory, indeed, implying that such "agents" don't even exist,...

...clearly shows me that, again, you simply haven't moved past the "veneer" of what we call "reality" and gone deep enough into the workings of this universe in order to realize that were it not for mind and matter -- working together in tandem -- then this "Great Machine" wouldn't (couldn't) even exist.
_______

You invoke David Bohm’s “Implicate Order” and the concept of a “holomovement” as if they overturn the basic, well-evidenced conclusion of determinism. But let’s be very clear: Bohm’s work was speculative—a philosophical extension of quantum theory, not a demonstrable rejection of physical causality.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm You’ve taken Bohm’s rich metaphors and turned them into a mystical smokescreen, dressing them up with words like “noumenal,” “holographic,” “interpenetrating,” and “explicating,” without ever confronting what the rest of the scientific community has made quite plain...

Me:
Physicist David Bohm not only referred to the quantum realm as being the "Implicate Order," but he also referred to it as being the "Holomovement." Why did he call it the "Holomovement"?

ChatGPT:
David Bohm referred to the quantum realm as the "Holomovement" as part of his attempt to describe a radically new vision of reality—one that is dynamic, interconnected, and holistic. Let’s break down why he used that term specifically:

1. "Holo" = Wholeness
The prefix holo- comes from the Greek word holos, meaning whole. Bohm believed that the universe is fundamentally undivided and that the apparent separateness we perceive in classical physics is an illusion. Everything is interconnected in a deeper, underlying order.

He was influenced by the hologram as a metaphor: in a hologram, each part contains the whole. He thought this illustrated how the universe might work at the quantum level—that every point in space could contain information about the entire cosmos.

2. "Movement" = Process, Not Static Being
The second part, movement, reflects his belief that reality is not made up of static "things" but is rather an ongoing, dynamic process. In contrast to the traditional view of particles as isolated entities, Bohm envisioned reality as constant flow and change, where even particles are temporary abstractions of deeper processes.

He emphasized process over structure, and the Holomovement represents this flowing, unfolding, and enfolding activity of the universe.

3. Unified Process of Implicate and Explicate Orders
The Holomovement includes both:

• The Implicate Order (the deeper, hidden order of enfolded reality), and
  
  The Explicate Order (the unfolded, manifest world we perceive).

Bohm saw these two as not separate but rather aspects of a single, unbroken whole—the Holomovement is the totality of that process. It’s the ground from which all orders emerge.

In summary:
David Bohm called it the Holomovement because he wanted to convey that:

• Reality is a whole (not fragmented),
  
  It is fundamentally movement (not static),
  
  And everything we observe is part of a deeper, dynamic and unified process.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm You say I haven’t gone deep enough, but all I hear from you is a poetic layer atop a reality you don’t seem comfortable looking at directly. That’s not “deep.” That’s evasion dressed as insight.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm Now, let me address your claim that “conscious agents” are required for reality to exist. This is the same tired misreading of quantum mechanics that’s been parroted since the 1970s—typically by those who want physics to sound more like spirituality. But quantum decoherence, entanglement, and observer effects don’t require consciousness to “collapse” anything. They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

"...Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem, as the founders of decoherence theory admit in their seminal papers....Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse...."

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 6:11 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 6:54 pm The religious can forever be preoccupied with things that don't exist. Others have better things to do.

EXCELLENT! That's mine from now on----lol!!

Ben JS wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 12:04 am Mike,

Ben JS wrote: I think you're interested in truth & wisdom.
Sadly, that sets you apart -
even on a philosophy forum.

Many are not interested in truth,
they're interested in security.

Your capacity to present truth threatens them,
as their security does not rest upon truth.

Truth reveals their volatility.

Alone, they'll likely squirm -
but together, like hyenas,
they'll try to circle you,
try to smother you with falsehood -
and if you become exhausted,
that's when they'll go for the throat.

To eliminate you,
by any tactic,
allows them to declare falsehood truth.
Allows them to declare the strength of their falsehood,
when all they established was the weakness of flesh.

Truth does not die.
Regardless of if not one speaks it.

They're not obeying the principles you are,
they're on a different path -
as you recognize, the path of truth scares them.

They do not know what they're doing -
they ignorantly lash out,
because they're frightened animals.

Not realizing their thrashing,
is carving out the pit,
that they'll starve in.

-

Fortunately, you're not obligated to play their 'game'.
If they were genuinely interested in truth,
they could research the insincere questions they pose -
but they wont do that, they're not interested in the response.
They demand YOU, respond to every intellectual dishonesty they can muster.
Why? To overwhelm you.
Again, they believe overwhelming you is equivalent to establishing the contents of their beliefs.
And again, all it would establish is the capacity for a majority to overwhelm a minority.

To listen, evaluate and explain takes energy/effort.
These are finite resources.
If you deplete these resources on their falsehoods,
you've gained nothing, and they've ensured their security.

I suggest focusing your energy on discovering, defining & living by truth.
It builds upon itself and empowers those who align with it.
That is not wasted energy.

The greater that monument of truth,
the more falsehood that will be revealed by it's light.

I encourage you to exercise prudence in your allocation of energy.
It's not a race.

-

You have demonstrated a strong capacity to speak for yourself,
and you can exercise your own judgement as to how to proceed.
Don't let me stop you from pursuing your vision.

It may very well be easy for you to maintain producing responses,
and if the length of this thread is anything to go by,
you've again demonstrated your aptitude in this area.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 4:25 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

Seeds's nonsense aside where we can get a Ferrari out of the wavefunction of a potato.

Yes it's all physical, but apart from that, no one knows what a measurement actually is in physics. "Information" is almost certainly just an abstract concept, it can't be absorbed, that's just handwaving. "Interaction" is also just handwaving as the universe isn't made of distinct interacting parts, and how is it that they can put say a buckyball into superposition when it has many internal interactions. Gravity is also an interaction and it doesn't seem to effect superpositions. Maybe it has something to do with irreversible energy transfer (change) from a certain perspective (for example from the perspective of a certain part of human consciousness), don't know.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 7:28 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 9:25 pm
And right there, BigMike (in that enlarged and bolded last sentence), is where you demonstrate that you just haven't gone deep enough into the study and exploration of the workings of the universe.

For it is obvious that your entire focus is on the thin (and outer) "veneer" of reality...

(of which physicist David Bohm calls the "Explicate Order")

...while completely ignoring what Bohm calls the "Implicate Order."

And the point is that by ignoring the "Implicate Order" of reality,...

(or at least by not recognizing and emphasizing the importance of its "noumenal-like" relationship to the "Explicate Order")

...you present yourself as seeming to be completely oblivious to the fact that the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on...

(at least according to certain interpretations of quantum physics)

...is nothing more than a "holographic-like" projection from a deeper level of reality that Bohm not only calls the "Implicate Order," but he also calls it the "Holomovement."

Bohm calls it the "Holomovement" because it is theorized...

(via experiment, and by reason of the implications of Schrödinger's equation)

...to consist of moving and roiling...

(holographic-like, as in interpenetrating/entangled/superpositioned, yet highly correlated)

...patterns of energy and information that underpin and delineate the very structure and phenomenal appearance of the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on that, again, according to certain interpretations of quantum physics,...

...might not even exist as "...solid ground..." were it not for the presence of consciousness "explicating" its phenomenal features into 3-D reality from the patterns of information.

And the fact that you place so little importance on the role that minds and their conscious "agents" play in your deterministic theory, indeed, implying that such "agents" don't even exist,...

...clearly shows me that, again, you simply haven't moved past the "veneer" of what we call "reality" and gone deep enough into the workings of this universe in order to realize that were it not for mind and matter -- working together in tandem -- then this "Great Machine" wouldn't (couldn't) even exist.
_______

You invoke David Bohm’s “Implicate Order” and the concept of a “holomovement” as if they overturn the basic, well-evidenced conclusion of determinism. But let’s be very clear: Bohm’s work was speculative—a philosophical extension of quantum theory, not a demonstrable rejection of physical causality.

Well, all I can say is, unlike you, with your "shut up and calculate" mentality, Bohm didn't ignore the mysteries that were arising from the science of quantum mechanics.

And although they may have been speculative and philosophical in nature, he at least made an effort to come up with some "possible explanations" for the strange behavior of the quantum realm.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm You’ve taken Bohm’s rich metaphors and turned them into a mystical smokescreen, dressing them up with words like “noumenal,” “holographic,” “interpenetrating,” and “explicating,” without ever confronting what the rest of the scientific community has made quite plain...

I'm sorry, BigMike, but you just don't seem to understand what Bohm's "...rich metaphors..." actually mean.

As always, just for funzies, I ran this past ChatGPT (some resizing, bolding, and one minor word correction in my question, mine)...

Me:
Physicist David Bohm not only referred to the quantum realm as being the "Implicate Order," but he also referred to it as being the "Holomovement." Why did he call it the "Holomovement"?

ChatGPT:
David Bohm referred to the quantum realm as the "Holomovement" as part of his attempt to describe a radically new vision of reality—one that is dynamic, interconnected, and holistic. Let’s break down why he used that term specifically:

1. "Holo" = Wholeness
The prefix holo- comes from the Greek word holos, meaning whole. Bohm believed that the universe is fundamentally undivided and that the apparent separateness we perceive in classical physics is an illusion. Everything is interconnected in a deeper, underlying order.

He was influenced by the hologram as a metaphor: in a hologram, each part contains the whole. He thought this illustrated how the universe might work at the quantum level—that every point in space could contain information about the entire cosmos.

2. "Movement" = Process, Not Static Being
The second part, movement, reflects his belief that reality is not made up of static "things" but is rather an ongoing, dynamic process. In contrast to the traditional view of particles as isolated entities, Bohm envisioned reality as constant flow and change, where even particles are temporary abstractions of deeper processes.

He emphasized process over structure, and the Holomovement represents this flowing, unfolding, and enfolding activity of the universe.

3. Unified Process of Implicate and Explicate Orders
The Holomovement includes both:

• The Implicate Order (the deeper, hidden order of enfolded reality), and
  
  The Explicate Order (the unfolded, manifest world we perceive).

Bohm saw these two as not separate but rather aspects of a single, unbroken whole—the Holomovement is the totality of that process. It’s the ground from which all orders emerge.

In summary:
David Bohm called it the Holomovement because he wanted to convey that:

• Reality is a whole (not fragmented),
  
  It is fundamentally movement (not static),
  
  And everything we observe is part of a deeper, dynamic and unified process.

Again, you just don't seem to understand what Bohm's "...rich metaphors..." actually mean, or why he used them.

And that's a problem that comes from being so closed-minded about such things.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm You say I haven’t gone deep enough, but all I hear from you is a poetic layer atop a reality you don’t seem comfortable looking at directly. That’s not “deep.” That’s evasion dressed as insight.

Are you kidding me?

You are the master of evasion.

I can't keep track of how many of my posts you've ignored (evaded).

This one, for example, from a couple of days ago...

viewtopic.php?p=764635#p764635

-------

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm Now, let me address your claim that “conscious agents” are required for reality to exist. This is the same tired misreading of quantum mechanics that’s been parroted since the 1970s—typically by those who want physics to sound more like spirituality. But quantum decoherence, entanglement, and observer effects don’t require consciousness to “collapse” anything. They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

Again, you don't seem to be fully informed on some of these issues.

So, to bring you up to speed, according to Wiki (emphasis mine)...

"...Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem, as the founders of decoherence theory admit in their seminal papers....Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse...."

So, no, there has been no resolution to the "measurement problem" in terms of pinning down precisely what it is that causes the collapse of the wave-function.
_______

Ben JS wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 1:17 am Yes, caveman, Alexis has been joking this whole time.
Every single post, one big joke. Haha, funny joke.
Describing their words as a joke isn't back peddling, hahaha.

henry wrote:Mike threw the first punch, in multiple threads. He set the stage. We, who oppose him, we're supposed to extend the olive branch? Reach across the aisle? Open a dialogue? Compromise?

Hell no.

And this was your extension of the joke.
Hahaha, very funny.

henry wrote:and he was offended

caveman knows what feeling offended is, hahaha.
caveman doesn't know disappointment, no dignity.. hahaha.
caveman see what caveman do.. hahaha.

caveman definitely knew Alexis was 'joking', hahaha.
caveman not fooled, hahaha.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 12:04 am Mike,

I think you're interested in truth & wisdom. Sadly, that sets you apart — even on a philosophy forum.

Many are not interested in truth, they're interested in security.

Your capacity to present truth threatens them, as their security does not rest upon truth.

Truth reveals their volatility.

Alone, they'll likely squirm — but together, like hyenas, they'll try to circle you, try to smother you with falsehood — and if you become exhausted, that's when they'll go for the throat.

To eliminate you, by any tactic,
allows them to declare falsehood truth. Allows them to declare the strength of their falsehood, when all they established was the weakness of flesh.

Truth does not die. Regardless of if not one speaks it.

They're not obeying the principles you are, they're on a different path — as you recognize, the path of truth scares them.

They do not know what they're doing -
they ignorantly lash out, because they're frightened animals.

Not realizing their thrashing, is carving out the pit, that they'll starve in.

Fortunately, you're not obligated to play their 'game'. If they were genuinely interested in truth, they could research the insincere questions they pose — but they wont do that, they're not interested in the response. They demand YOU, respond to every intellectual dishonesty they can muster. Why? To overwhelm you.

Again, they believe overwhelming you is equivalent to establishing the contents of their beliefs. And again, all it would establish is the capacity for a majority to overwhelm a minority.

To listen, evaluate and explain takes energy/effort. These are finite resources. If you deplete these resources on their falsehoods, you've gained nothing, and they've ensured their security.

I suggest focusing your energy on discovering, defining & living by truth. It builds upon itself and empowers those who align with it. That is not wasted energy.

The greater that monument of truth, the more falsehood that will be revealed by it's light.

I encourage you to exercise prudence in your allocation of energy. It's not a race.

You have demonstrated a strong capacity to speak for yourself, and you can exercise your own judgement as to how to proceed. Don't let me stop you from pursuing your vision.

It may very well be easy for you to maintain producing responses, and if the length of this thread is anything to go by, you've again demonstrated your aptitude in this area.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 12:47 pm I grew up with that kind of behavior too. The moment things got real—when they got caught misrepresenting, contradicting, or stumbling over their own logic—they’d twist, laugh, and turn it into a performance: "What? You thought I was serious? Wow, you're dumber than I thought." The aim wasn't truth—it was domination through misdirection.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:43 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 9:25 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 4:03 pm
Henry, let’s get something straight: you’re not “opposing me.” You’re opposing reality—cause, effect, physics, neuroscience, and everything else that makes sense of the world without invoking ghosts or cosmic whispers....

...your whole post reeks of projection. You accuse me of being in “the void,” but you're the one terrified of a world that doesn’t bend to human fantasy. You're so afraid of determinism that you’d rather invent metaphysical fluff than deal with the simple, humbling truth: we are caused, through and through. That doesn’t make us meaningless. It makes us real.

So no—I’m not in a pit. I’m standing on solid ground....

And right there, BigMike (in that enlarged and bolded last sentence), is where you demonstrate that you just haven't gone deep enough into the study and exploration of the workings of the universe.

For it is obvious that your entire focus is on the thin (and outer) "veneer" of reality...

(of which physicist David Bohm calls the "Explicate Order")

...while completely ignoring what Bohm calls the "Implicate Order."

And the point is that by ignoring the "Implicate Order" of reality,...

(or at least by not recognizing and emphasizing the importance of its "noumenal-like" relationship to the "Explicate Order")

...you present yourself as seeming to be completely oblivious to the fact that the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on...

(at least according to certain interpretations of quantum physics)

...is nothing more than a "holographic-like" projection from a deeper level of reality that Bohm not only calls the "Implicate Order," but he also calls it the "Holomovement."

Bohm calls it the "Holomovement" because it is theorized...

(via experiment, and by reason of the implications of Schrödinger's equation)

...to consist of moving and roiling...

(holographic-like, as in interpenetrating/entangled/superpositioned, yet highly correlated)

...patterns of energy and information that underpin and delineate the very structure and phenomenal appearance of the so-called "...solid ground..." you are standing on that, again, according to certain interpretations of quantum physics,...

...might not even exist as "...solid ground..." were it not for the presence of consciousness "explicating" its phenomenal features into 3-D reality from the patterns of information.

And the fact that you place so little importance on the role that minds and their conscious "agents" play in your deterministic theory, indeed, implying that such "agents" don't even exist,...

...clearly shows me that, again, you simply haven't moved past the "veneer" of what we call "reality" and gone deep enough into the workings of this universe in order to realize that were it not for mind and matter -- working together in tandem -- then this "Great Machine" wouldn't (couldn't) even exist.
_______

Seeds, I appreciate that you’re at least trying to engage with scientific ideas rather than clinging to Bronze Age theology—but we need to talk about what you’re doing with those ideas.

You invoke David Bohm’s “Implicate Order” and the concept of a “holomovement” as if they overturn the basic, well-evidenced conclusion of determinism. But let’s be very clear: Bohm’s work was speculative—a philosophical extension of quantum theory, not a demonstrable rejection of physical causality. You’ve taken Bohm’s rich metaphors and turned them into a mystical smokescreen, dressing them up with words like “noumenal,” “holographic,” “interpenetrating,” and “explicating,” without ever confronting what the rest of the scientific community has made quite plain:

The world still works on cause and effect.
The brain still runs on physical processes.
Nothing about Bohm’s ideas breaks the laws of thermodynamics, conservation, or the principle that all interactions occur through the four fundamental forces.

You say I haven’t gone deep enough, but all I hear from you is a poetic layer atop a reality you don’t seem comfortable looking at directly. That’s not “deep.” That’s evasion dressed as insight.

Now, let me address your claim that “conscious agents” are required for reality to exist. This is the same tired misreading of quantum mechanics that’s been parroted since the 1970s—typically by those who want physics to sound more like spirituality. But quantum decoherence, entanglement, and observer effects don’t require consciousness to “collapse” anything. They require interactions—physical ones. Measurement doesn’t need a soul. It just needs a system capable of absorbing information.

You say I'm missing what lies “beneath” the solid ground. But here's the irony: I see what's beneath it. I just don’t pretend it’s magic. I don’t call it “deep” when it’s really just vague. And I don’t mistake mystery for license to invent.

So if you want to explore the implications of quantum theory and complexity—great. But don’t use that curiosity as an excuse to reject everything we already know about causality, physics, and the complete absence of anything like metaphysical free will.

The universe is not waiting for us to “explicate” it.
It’s moving, interacting, unfolding—regardless of whether anyone notices. And yes, we’re part of that movement. We matter. But not because we float above causality. We matter because we are embedded in it.

You want reality to be participatory. That’s fine. But the real participation isn’t in conjuring up the world from some psychic interface. It’s in recognizing the truth, and living in a way that honors it.

And that, my friend, doesn’t require a holomovement. Just courage.

Ben: You have demonstrated a strong capacity to speak for yourself, and you can exercise your own judgement as to how to proceed. Don't let me stop you from pursuing your vision.

It may very well be easy for you to maintain producing responses, and if the length of this thread is anything to go by, you've again demonstrated your aptitude in this area.