Here ya go: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nick_Herb ... 20universeVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:42 amWhere is the link to that quote re Berkeley?seeds wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:54 pmI used the following quote in one of your other threads...Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:54 am
Reality is an imperative 'hallmark' of sanity.
If you do not want to ground God on the basis of reality, then you are associating god with insanity from the start.
It was stated by physicist Nick Herbert and was based on his assessment of Werner Heisenberg's conclusions of how what we call "reality" is composed of a substance that doesn't seem to be very real itself, but is more or less...The entire visible universe, what Bishop Berkeley called "the mighty frame of the world," rests ultimately on a strange quantum kind of being no more substantial than a promise.
"...a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia from Aristotle's philosophy..." — Wiki
Think about it V, if according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the foundation of what we call "reality" can be considered to be...
"...no more substantial than a promise..."
...then what the heck are you referring to when you say that...
"...Reality is an imperative 'hallmark' of sanity..." ?
It would seem to me that true "sanity" is being able to rise above our biased assumptions about the world in order to make a more accurate and honest assessment of what the word "reality" actually means.
The bottom line is that what you are calling "reality" is nothing more than a "holographic-like" illusion that is founded upon correlated patterns (or fields) of energy and information.
I would insist that those "fields of information" that underpin the phenomenal features of the universe are simply higher and more ordered versions of the same fields of information that underpin our own thoughts and dreams,...
...but you're just not ready for it, and would no doubt throw a hissy-fit and accuse me of being in the throes of an existential crisis due to a fear of death.
Anyway, with all that being said, how about you provide me with a direct and pertinent answer to the first question I asked of you in the post you responded to.
And that question is...
"...What if God does not want to be proven to be real?..."
_______
How about we call this new obsession of yours the...Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:42 am In any case, that is not within the context of reality we are discussing here.
The 'reality' that matters is this;
What is reality [and the like] is conditioned upon a human-based FSRC [framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition {knowledge}];
"Veritas Aequitas Framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition/Knowledge of how to Employ Annoying Acronyms"
Which, of course, for making it easier for one to use in the numerous philosophical conversations where your new obsession will no doubt be constantly referenced by other esteemed philosophers, there would be this...
...the "VAFSRRCKEAA"
(As a new philosophy lexicon entry, phonetically, it could be pronounced like this: the "VAFSERKIA")
Waddya think? Catchy, right?
Are you daft? I referenced the implications of the "scientifically derived" findings of quantum mechanics. How much more golden, and credible, and objective can the explorations into the nature of "reality" get?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:42 am ...of which the scientific FSRC [correction: the "VAFSRRCKEAA"] is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality.
What is truly ridiculous is a wannabe philosopher who is terrified of exploring hypothetical questions.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:42 amThis is ridiculous!
For the matter of reality, it is useless to deal with 'if' conditional in this case, especially there are too many IFs, i.e.
If God exists and if God does not want to be proven to be real?
Why?
Because if seen as reasonable, they might cast doubt on his highly ingrained belief system and, in turn, trigger an existential crisis, accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
I gave you a perfectly plausible reason for why God might not want to be proven to be real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:42 am How can you know God does not want to be proven to be 'real' [FSRC-ed] [correction: VAFSRRCKEAA-ed] when you have not proven God to be real [FSRC-ed]? [correction: VAFSRRCKEAA-ed]
It is so messy and thus a non-starter.
Unfortunately, you are so cocooned and encapsulated within the opaque ideological bubble you've created out of the blatherings of old philosophers such as Kant, that you are incapable of entertaining the possible solutions to the perennial (unsolved) mysteries of reality.
Repeating the same strangely worded and illogical assertion over and over again, doesn't make it any less nonsensical.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:42 am I say again,
reality [FRSC-ed] [correction: VAFSRRCKEAA-ed] is the hallmark of sanity.
The dense outer film of your ideological bubble will of course repel the following,...Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:42 am What is critical relevant here is theists want to prove God is real.
If theists do not want 'the proof - God is real' then they are implying their God is not-real, i.e. false and illusory.
...however, the fact of the matter is that theists would love to prove, or, more accurately, love to have the "realness" of God proven to them and the rest of humanity, but like I suggested earlier, the operative integrity of the illusion of objective reality, along with the very reason for why the universe was created in the first place,...
...may very well hinge on the necessity of God remaining hidden from most of humanity (at least until death).
_______