TLOP in Action?

A frequent commentor, here and at other venues, many times will reference the laws of physics, equating them to God.

It appears that embracing TLOP too tightly, is akin to winding a clock too tight.

"A University of Louisiana at Lafayette physics professor (Louis Houston ed.) was banned from the campus Wednesday and taken to the coroner’s office for evaluation after threatening his class, university officials said."

and this.

"Spears said Houston slapped a student and then told his class he was God."

I guess they took Houston to the coroner’s office for evaluation because Nietzsche stated God is dead.

“Physics Professor Goes on Rage in Class."

Via Drudge.

Posted by on 10/15 at 03:14 AM

  1. Hehehe ... would it surprise you if I told you that I know that nitwit?

    Inevitably Materialism (the philisophical basis (underlying premise) for Atheism) leads to Solipsism. It is a horrible Fate even for those misguided enough to desire it (of their own “free will").

    But don’t take my word for it. 

    Posted by  on  10/15  at  06:45 AM

  2. “the harmony of natural law” (TLOP) “...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection” -A. Einstein

    Posted by The Wizard  on  10/17  at  12:51 PM

  3. I firmly agree with Einstein on that point – how about yourself Mr. Wizard?

    Of course that assumes that Einstein and TLOP (and myself) aren’t merely products of (generated by) your subconscious imagination as “Dr. Houston” came to conclude. 

    Posted by  on  10/18  at  07:05 AM

  4. I do agree with Einstein.

    Once he was able to admit to himself (realised) that TLOP provided evidence of a creator ("intelligence of such superiority") and a necessity for a beginning, he spoke of his desire to “ know how God created this world” and that he was “not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element.  I want to know his (God’s) thought.  The rest are details.”

    Posted by The Wizard  on  10/18  at  02:48 PM

  5. Albert Einstein: God doesn’t play dice with reality!

    How about that one?

    Posted by  on  10/19  at  05:56 AM

  6. “God does not play dice” imports a belief in an objective intelligibility in the continuous dynamic structures and transformations in the space-time reality of the universe which we may apprehend, but only at relatively elementary levels through open structures, even though they are mathematically precise in their formalisation. 

    In quantum theory the scientist is in touch with nature which in its depth is so subtle and elusive that it cannot be explained in terms of the couplet “chance and necessity”. That “God does not play dice” highlights the fact that chance is after all a negative way of thinking, or rather a way not to think.

    Yet it is only from God “who does not play dice”, who does not wear his heart on his sleeve, and who is deep but not devious, that we may be given an understanding of the ultimate reason for the created universe, and of his redemptive purpose for a world that has gone astray.

    Posted by The Wizard  on  10/19  at  06:59 AM

  7. The Wizard: That “God does not play dice” highlights the fact that chance is after all a negative way of thinking, or rather a way not to think.

    Suddenly your nickname seems appropriate.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    The Wizard: Yet it is only from God “who does not play dice”, who does not wear his heart on his sleeve, and who is deep but not devious, that we may be given an understanding of the ultimate reason for the created universe, and of his redemptive purpose for a world that has gone astray.

    The “singularity” which existed prior to “the Big Bang” was a state of Solipsism. “God” (the primordial consciousness) was alone.

    Since the dawn of Individuality there have been those individuals who wished to “go back” (down) and return to a state of Solipsism.

    But the majority did (do) not want to go back (much to the dismay of the minority). The majority wanted to move forward (up).

    Thus began the eternal struggle between the forces of Good, and the forces of Evil.

    Which side do you fight for?

    Posted by  on  10/19  at  07:15 AM

  8. Ethics ("forces of Good, and the forces of Evil") deals with the purpose of life, that which gives us a reason to live, that which give our lives value.

    The secular humanists attempt to provide a human basis for value and ethics, but this fails because every human can have different values, and different ones at different times, depending upon his feelings or the situation. With no standard for meaning or thinking about values, good and bad become a matter of passing, personal feeling--whatever you feel like at the moment.  Situation ethics is only the mildest consequence of this subjective and hence irrational view which has strong tendencies toward solipsism. If man is the measure of all things, why not this man--me--as the measure of all things? As a consequence, society is filled with mindless greed and selfishness, hypocrisy and caprice, impulsive and compulsive behavior.

    Without standards of value, the universe is meaningless, and even that meaninglessness is incomprehensible because logic, ethics, and aesthetics are all normative fields which rely on standards of value for distinguishing reason from fallacy, good from evil, and the true from the false.

    Which do I fight for? ("forces of Good, and the forces of Evil") That would be subjective to my perspective (my reality) as well as yours.  What I may consider forces of good you may consider forces of evil and vice-versa.

    Posted by The Wizard  on  10/19  at  03:51 PM

  9. Precisely what I originally anticipated.

    So 2 apples + 2 apples doesn’t always equal 4 apples? Reality [TLOP] is not Objective?? God does play dice after all???

    The Wizard: What I may consider forces of good [True] you may consider forces of evil [False] and vice-versa.

    You are more accurately “The Necromancer”.

    Posted by  on  10/20  at  06:25 AM

  10. To get at the objective truth of things, what is required is the application of a consciously and consistently scientific method which repeatedly grapples with objective reality and tests & transforms it to see whether or not it conforms to predictions we make about how it actually is at any given point, and in what ways it may be changing and developing.

    Yes we do all bring our subjective influences and outlooks to the task; but the actual truth of things (in actual objective reality) is there (2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples) , whether we interact with it or not, and regardless of any of our subjective opinions and preconceived notions.

    Posted by The Wizard  on  10/20  at  07:17 AM

  11. Are you attempting to confuse me Mr. Wizard?

    You seem to be making one assertion, and then you assert the exact opposite.

    The Wizard: Without standards of value, the universe is meaningless, and even that meaninglessness is incomprehensible because logic, ethics, and aesthetics are all normative fields which rely on standards of value for distinguishing reason from fallacy, good from evil, and the true from the false.

    Reality is Objective.

    The (Anti)Wizard: Which do I fight for? [Truth or Falsity]) That would be subjective to my perspective (my reality) as well as yours.  What I may consider forces of good [Truth] you may consider forces of evil [Falsity] and vice-versa.

    Reality is Subjective.

    The Wizard: To get at the objective truth of things, what is required is the application of a consciously and consistently scientific method which repeatedly grapples with objective reality and tests & transforms it to see whether or not it conforms to predictions we make about how it actually is at any given point, and in what ways it may be changing and developing.

    Reality is Objective.

    --------------

    I concede it is entirely possible I have simply misunderstood (misperceived) some of your words here (7:51pm)? In hindsight (and after reading your last post) that is the output I am currently generating. But given your statements (outputs) of the past several weeks my first conclusion was that your Charge was in flux.

    I will make my own position as clear as I possibly can.

    I believe that Reality is completely and totally Objective and Logical. I believe that 2 + 2 always equals 4.

    The Wizard: Yes we do all bring our subjective influences [errors/bugs in our algorithms] and outlooks [unique perceptions] to the task; but the actual truth of things (in actual objective reality) is there (2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples) , whether we interact with it or not, and regardless of any of our subjective opinions and preconceived notions.

    Wizards annihilate Necromancers.  wink

    Posted by  on  10/20  at  09:25 AM

  12. Serpent: This has been, for me, a very educational experience. 

    I must confess that I am rather “green” in this field, having had no formal education in it. This has forced me to do a lot of reading/learning about objective vs. subjective reality and truth. It has thus increased my knowledge of it though I believe I’m walking a fine line...the items on eithier side of that line being knowledge and wisdom...knowing something and fully understanding it.

    What have I learned?

    An objective truth is a statement of inherent reality. It is something that is true independently of the question of its truth, or the opinions or observations of thinking beings. (2+2=4)

    An subjective truth is a statement of perceived reality (2+2=5), irregardless of the truth, and there is much difference of opinion between individuals as to which, if any, interpretation is correct. 

    (Our good friend Einstein had a problem with subjective vs. objective reality (truth) when he favored a static universe vs. an expanding universe and introduced his “Cosmic Fudge Factor” into his theory of relativity)

    Question: Can’t Objective reality be, at times, subjective too?  Having to do with the way a person “knows”?  Or are the two always separate from one another?

    Feel free to respond direct if you wish and, by the way, Thanks for the dialogue!

    Posted by The Wizard  on  10/21  at  06:41 AM

  13. precisely by plan ...

    No ... Yes ... The only thing that I didn’t comprehend was the vanishing beer-girl?

    […]

    What the hell was that?!?

    … […] … … …

    No … no … it is the Sabre’s influence. … Oh, I agree. … either way, You shouldn’t be concerned …

    Posted by  on  10/29  at  08:28 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Dead Horse Wisdom

Previous entry: Two Worth Reading

<< Back to main