I don’t worship anyone. I merely note the extraordinary technological and engineering accomplishments that we take for granted here and now; accomplishments that would have been virtually unthinkable back when, say, Christ is alleged to have been born.
Physicists must know something rather objective about the world we live in, right?
And while you dispute many aspects of “modern physics” [re RM/AO and the Real God], you have not yet been able to demonstrate this much beyond your tiny presence here on the internet. In other words, when will you deconstruct the conspiracy they have mounted against you, such that you will begin to pop up on, say, Nova or the Science Channel?
Or [as no doubt you imagine] when will they come to you?
Instead…
But few folks are quite like you, James. You have managed to construct this gigantic intellectual contraption “in your head” that, through “definitional logic” has resulted in this equally gigantic “theory of everything” that somehow “in your head” manages to intertwine definitional logic with RM/AO with the Real God with…what exactly?
… with Physics.
Again, until you are actually able to reconfigure your premises/assumptions/definitional logic into a demonstrable model of the universe that we live in, I suspect you will remain but a tiny presence on the internet.
And that’s before we get to the manner in which you integrate your TOE regarding the either/or world into the world of is/ought.
In particular as it relates to conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments.
… with Psychology.
Well, my own argument here does revolve around psychology. Remember this:
[b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/b]
And while this pertains to the “psychology of objectivism” in the is/ought world, it is probably true in turn regarding physicists assessments of the either/or world. Especially regarding…
1] the world of the very, very small
2] the world of the very, very large
3] the world that brings them both together seamlessly so as to explain Existence itself
And the parts we call “human reality”.
You should think it interesting that neither modern physicists, psychologists, nor me have your special dilemma, yet they are your reference for being “rational”.
On the contrary, my “reference for being rational” is no less an existential contraption than I suspect that yours is. It’s just that with regard to the either/or world, it seems that “modern physics” has established an astounding accumulation of seeming facts about the world we live in.
My dilemma on the other hand pertains far more to the is/ought world. And, really, what do physicists [modern or otherwise] have to tell us definitively [even today] about that?