A Critical, Quantum Gn¤stic Review


David Hume's

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Part I

Whither Philosophical Theology Is Science's Sovereign?


Doug Renselle

Doug's Prereview Comments

Parts I through XII titles are comtrivances of Paul Douglas Renselle, April-May, 2006.

Pamphilus To Hermippus

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Part VI

Part VII


Part IX

Part X

Part XI

Part XII


Move to any Part of David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,
or to beginning of its review via this set of links
says, "You are here!")

Part I...............Whither Philosophical Theology Is Science's Sovereign?
'Can We Expect to Answer that Query Dialectically,
Alternatively Need We Answer It Quantum~Gnostically?'



(Verbatim David Hume. Mostly following Hafner Library of Classics, 1948.)

(Relevant to Pirsig, Quantum Gn¤stic Jesuitism, and Quantonics Thinking Modes.)

"After I joined the company, whom I found sitting in Cleanthes's library, Demea paid Cleanthes some compliments on the great care which he [Cleanthes] took of my [Pamphilus'] education, and on his unwearied perseverance and constancy in all his friendships. The father of Pamphilus, said he, was your [Cleanthes'] intimate friend: The son is your pupil; and may indeed be regarded as your adopted son, were we to judge by the pains which you bestow in conveying to him every useful branch of literature and science. You are no more wanting, I am persuaded, in prudence, than in industry. I shall, therefore, communicate to you a maxim, which I have observed with regard to my own children, that I may learn how far it agrees with your practice. The method I follow in their education is founded on the saying of an ancient, 'That students of philosophy ought first to learn logics, then ethics, next physics, last of all the nature of the gods.'1 This science of natural theology, according to him, being the most profound and abstruse of any, required the maturest judgment in its students; and none but a mind enriched with all the other sciences, can safely be intrusted with it.

"Are you so late, says Philo, in teaching your children the principles of religion? Is there no danger of their neglecting, or rejecting altogether those opinions of which they have heard so little during the whole course of their education? It is only as a science, replied Demea, subjected to human reasoning and disputation, that I postpone the study of natural theology. To season their minds with early piety, is my chief care; and by continual precept and instruction, and I hope too by example, I imprint deeply on their tender minds an habitual reverence for all the principles of religion. While they pass through every other science, I still remark the uncertainty of each part; the eternal disputations of men; the obscurity of all philosophy; and the strange, ridiculous conclusions, which some of the greatest geniuses have derived from the principles of mere human reason. Having thus tamed their mind to a proper submission and self- diffidence, I have no longer any scruple of opening to them the greatest mysteries of religion; nor apprehend [appreciate, understand, accept] any danger from that assuming arrogance of philosophy, which may lead them to reject the most established doctrines and opinions." Our bold, color and brackets.

1Chrysippus apud Plut. de repug. Stoicorum.

Our bold and color highlights follow a code:

  • black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning our review
  • orange-bold - text ref'd by index pages
  • green-bold - we see Hume proffering quantumesque memes
  • violet-bold - an apparent classical problematic
    In Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion we mark most 'classical English language problematics' using bold violet. It seems fair to mark our own uses too. As you read do some substitutions on your own: di to omni, con to com, not to n¤t, in to ihn, discard wasted the and when discard is impossible use possessives, etc. See our QELR. See our QELP.
  • blue-bold - we disagree with this text segment while disregarding context of Hume's overall text
  • gray-bold - quotable text
  • red-bold - our direct commentary
  • [] - our intra text commentary

Again we emphasize omnifferencings in two classes of education:

  • individual, and
  • social,

and, in Quantonics, we teach there are many ways of educating two of which we compare in this review:

  • classical, and
  • quantum.

In our view, quantum education is superior classical education, and we demonstrate that thoroughly in Quantonics. We teach that individual is above society and that quantum education is above classical education. Much of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion appear to assume and classically teach that society, generally, is above individual. In Quantonics' view classical society is generally inept, where quantum individuals are generally adept.

We sense, early in this review, that Philo and Demea are classically educated. Cleanthes appears classical with some quantum intuitions. We'll see...

Again we have to ask our readers to compare:

  • classical science, logics, ethics, physics and natural theology to
  • quantum scihænce, coquecigrues, ethics, physihcs amd natural thæ¤l¤gy (As of 28Apr2006 we have yet to QELR 'theology.' Doug.)

Compare to .

Ponder our table which shows evolution of classical society and individual compared to quantum society and individual. For a detail study of how that table emerged see our October, 2003 TQS News.

Similarly, take some timings to ponder carefully what classicists mean by "... judgment in its students..." Then compare that to what Quantonics means by judgment. Also see Quantonics' Bases of Judgment. See our QELR of judge. Then compare all that to what Hume means in his text just left. Evaluate Hume. Is his reason more classical? Can you find smidgeons, pinches of quantum~reason? If we QELR Hume does his reason improve?

Do you agree with his "...none but a mind enriched with all the other sciences, can safely be intrusted with [This science of natural theology]."

Allow us to assist slightly. Ask yourself two questions:

  1. Is theology scientific?
  2. Is science theological?

We are currently (1st and 2nd quarters 2006) reviewing Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Essentially Dennett, et al., claim that religion (and presumably then) theology are "unscientific."

In that review, based upon our interpretations of Dennett's written words, it appears to us that science 'hates' religion but is very 'religious' about its hatred of religion.

And with recent efforts of believers in 'Intelligent Design,' it appears to us that religion 'hates' science but is very 'pseudoscientific and religious' about its hatred of science.

Some call it "war."

What bases of judgment this social pattern of value "war?" We conclude: dialectic.

Quantonics has shown powerfully and candidly that 'dialectic' is a failed classical basis of judgment.

Now, is Hume using dialectic to assess "This science of natural theology?" We do n¤t know, but we want to find out since, in our confident view, dialectic destroys and disables anyone's qua for assessing memes in quantum reality.

Is Hume's "enrichment" dialectical? Very good question. (To view a nonscientifically enriched mind at work comparing The Enlightenment and 'natural theology,' may we suggest you read Isaiah Berlin's The Magus of the North about Johann Georg Hamann a theological irrationalist? Doug - 28Apr2006.)

We love this quote for its real quantumness, "I still remark the uncertainty of each part; the eternal disputations of men; the obscurity of all philosophy; and the strange, ridiculous conclusions, which some of the greatest geniuses have derived from the principles of mere human reason."

Quantum uncertainty engenders real diffidence! We need to teach quantum uncertainty and diffidence in our children shall follow. If we teach anything, teach our children that reality is uncertain, at all scales!

Then explain why. Quantonics is a superb source for that effort.

Much classical obscurity becomes markedly improved clarity with real quantum~understanding of reality.

What we like best about that kind of quantum~diffidence is that we do n¤t have to be shy about our confidence in memes surrounding quantum~uncertainty. Doug.

Assuming we can take this literally, "...assuming arrogance of philosophy, which may lead them to reject the most established doctrines and opinions...," and assuming that Hume would apply this clause's propositions to his own philosophy, science, logic, ethics as well as theology, we view this as quantum com(n)fidence based upon acceptance of quantum uncertainty, in general.

Note that Hume's second paragraph quasi quantum word count (green bold) to total word count (minus Doug's brackets) is 54/195 which is a nearly 28% quantumesque metric for Hume (just on that paragraph)!

Page top index.

 4 "Your precaution, says Philo, of seasoning your children's minds early with piety, is certainly very reasonable; and no more than is requisite in this profane and irreligious age. But what I chiefly admire in your plan of education, is your method of drawing advantage from the very principles of philosophy and learning, which, by inspiring pride and self-sufficiency, have commonly, in all ages, been found so destructive to the principles of religion. The vulgar [AKA common], indeed, we may remark, who are unacquainted with science and profound enquiry, observing the endless disputes of the learned, have commonly a thorough contempt for philosophy; and rivet themselves the faster, by that means, in the great points of theology which have been taught them. Those who enter a little into study and enquiry, finding many appearances of evidence in doctrines the newest and most extraordinary, think nothing too difficult for human reason; and, presumptuously breaking through all fences, profane the inmost sanctuaries of the temple [similar Dennett's Breaking the Spell]. But Cleanthes will, I hope, agree with me, that, after we have abandoned ignorance ["abandoning ignorance" is a classical ideal; in quantum reality we are always fallible due quantum uncertainty and always somewhat ignorant of whatings happenings carefully our What is Wrong with Probability as Value?], the surest remedy, there is still one expedient left to prevent this profane liberty. Let Demea's principles be improved and cultivated: let us become thoroughly sensible of the weakness, blindness, and narrow limits of human reason: let us duly consider its uncertainty and endless contrarieties, even in subjects of common life and practice: let the errors and deceits of our very senses be set before us; the insuperable difficulties which attend first principles in all systems; the contradictions which adhere to the very ideas of matter, cause and effect, extension, space, time, motion; and in a word, quantity of all kinds, the object of the only science that can fairly pretend to any certainty or evidence — when these topics are displayed in their full light, as they are by some philosophers and almost all divines; who can retain such confidence in this frail faculty of reason as to pay any regard to its determinations in points so sublime, so abstruse, so remote from common life and experience? When the coherence of the parts of a stone, or even that composition of parts which renders it extended; when these familiar objects, I say, are so inexplicable, and contain circumstances so repugnant and contradictory; with what assurance can we decide concerning the origin of worlds, or trace their history from eternity to eternity?"

Allow us to quote Henry D. Aiken's æsthetic assessment of Hume's "characters" in Hume's Dialogues...

"It is, however, a testimony to Hume's skill and the dramatic balance which he maintains throughout the Dialogues, that many astute commentators have supposed that Cleanthes really is the victor in Hume's eyes. Indeed, it is not too much to say that no finer philosophical dialogues exist in English, and that the argument is sustained at a level even higher than that of Berkeley's Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, which is its only close competitor. In general, I think we may say that Philo comes closer to representing Hume than any of the other characters, especially when he is attacking the arguments of Cleanthes and Demea, and that Cleanthes represents him only when he is agreeing with Philo against Demea.

"Each of the characters represents a clearly defined position. Demea is an exponent of orthodox rationalism. Cleanthes is a more enlightened representative of the philosophical theism which takes its cue from the empirical evidence for a Supreme Designer. Cleanthes is no less opposed to a priori arguments than Philo, and in Part IX, Hume puts into his mouth the refutation which gives the rationalist Demea his coup de grace, 'I shall not leave it to Philo,' said Cleanthes . . . 'to point out the weakness of this metaphysical reasoning. It seems to me so obviously ill-grounded, and at the same time of so little consequence to the cause of true piety and religion that I myself shall venture to show the fallacy of it.' Whereupon he argues, with an incisiveness equal to anything in the Treatise that the very phrase 'necessary existence [has] no meaning.' Hume represents Philo, as we have seen, as a 'careless sceptic,' but the trenchancy of the destructive criticism which Hume puts into his mouth should not blind us to his extraordinary imaginative power and speculative daring. It is Philo, indeed, who provides us with a riotous surfeit of 'hypotheses' concerning the origins of things." Pages xiii-xiv, Aiken's 'Introduction' to Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hafner Library of Classics, 1948." Our bold.

Summary (Doug's quantum assessment):

  1. Philo - Careless sceptic; pluralist; somewhat a subjectivist (In Greek, philo is 'love.')
  2. Demea - SOMite par excellence; pure ratiocination is mechanical, formal, ideally objective (We found no Greek for demea - delta epsilon micron etc. etc. was closest we could get, something about strings and packets. We found Latin demens which is roughly 'insane.')
  3. Cleanthes - Ænlihghtænæd gn¤stic (Couldn't find a Greek match, but phonetically it is something like "to clean and wash a broken flower." Do you believe it accidental Hume named he-r 'clean the s?')

Aside to vividly juxtapose classical 'certainty' with quantum uncertainty:

This is off topic, but while we are playing with word meanings allow us to heurist and hermeneut 'pneumatically' what pre 'catholic,' genuine gn¤stic Jesus meant by 'circumcision.' From experts like Pagels, etc., Jesus meant, roughly, gn¤stically, "protecting one's own heart from COORs' dialectical organized dogma." In Pirsigese it is something like, "protecting one's own soul (Quality) from satan (Exclusive Static Quality)."

Doug agrees! And just for your edification...

Now let's do that quantumly, in quantonicsese:

"Protecting one's own '...principal features of intelligence...'1 (quantum~uncertainty) from classically social edicts (classical-certainty)."

Our best exemplar here is socially certain SOMynotsee Germans' inquisitional holocaust edicts against uncertain Jews. Never, never, never forget it and disallow any 'certain' socialists from historically reverse engineering it!!! Then compare socially 'certain' GWBush and a wholly uncertain Middle East. It makes us, personally, ashamed to be US 'subjects to' Demos will 'citizens.' Doug.

First, we must learn to 'hate' certainty and love uncertainty, then realize they are quantum~c¤mplementary and therein obtain much of their quantum~pneumatic~power, and second, as Gn¤stic Jesus said, "...don't do what y¤u hate."2 Doug's partial QELR of our gn¤stic~jesuit quote. Our use of 'jesuit' is n¤n 'catholic.'

Doug - 10-11May2006.

End vivid aside.

Beware all classical, especially 'social,' uses of reason, plan, method, principle, common, science, evidence, doctrine, and sensibility.

Sure enough, Philo appears to take that stance and does so well as expressed in text we bolded green.

Quantonics' answer to Philo's [our-large-letter emphasis] query, "We can say that flux is crux. Uncertainty is real due reality's absolute change, making all that we monitor (QELRed we should say "omnitor") durational, subjective, and qualitative." See Quantonics' QELR of duration.

1Paul Pietsch in his Shufflebrain.

2Thomas Gospel, Number 6

"While Philo pronounced these words, I could observe a smile in the countenance both of Demea and Cleanthes. That of Demea seemed to imply an unreserved satisfaction in the doctrines delivered: but, in Cleanthes's features, I could distinguish an air of finesse; as if he perceived some raillery or artificial malice in the reasonings of Philo.

"You propose then, Philo, said Cleanthes, to erect religious faith on philosophical scepticism; and you think, that if certainty or evidence be expelled from every other subject of enquiry, it will all retire to these theological doctrines, and there acquire a superior force and authority. Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience. And this consideration, Demea, may, I think, fairly serve to abate our ill-will to this humourous sect of the sceptics. If they be thoroughly in earnest, they will not long trouble the world with their doubts, cavils, and disputes; if they be only in jest, they are, perhaps, bad railers; but can never be very dangerous, either to the state, to philosophy, or to religion.

"In reality, Philo, continued he, it seems certain, that though a man, in a flush of humour, after intense reflection on the many contradictions and imperfections of human reason, may entirely renounce all belief and opinion, it is impossible for him to persevere in this total scepticism, or make it appear in his conduct for a few hours. External objects [do n¤t exist in quantum reality - Doug] press in upon him; passions solicit him; his philosophical melancholy dissipates; and even the utmost violence upon his own temper will not be able, during any time, to preserve the poor appearance of scepticism [we need to omnistinguish classical and quantum hues of scepticism...]. And for what reason impose on himself such a violence? [said "violence" is a child of classical dialectics - Doug] This is a point in which it will be impossible for him ever to satisfy himself, consistently with his sceptical principles. So that, upon the whole, nothing could be more ridiculous than the principles of the ancient Pyrrhonians [readers please note that Pyrrho was a Greek philosopher, 365-270 b.c., who believed that we should expel all notions of judgment in favor of scepticism since classical reality has n¤ means of establishing certainty; he was right in his assessment and wr¤ng in his solution; quantum judgment can deal extremely well with classical uncertainty by predicting ensemble probability distributions (students and adepts of Quantonics, be aware that our italicized phrase is analogous our saying predicting "quantum wave functions") instead of classically attempting to predict state-ic events and state-ic scalar probabilities; in war Pyrrhonisitic battles bore huge losses due fighting "without judgment," especially fighting "without quantum judgment" - Doug 7May2006]; if in reality they endeavoured, as is pretended, to extend, throughout, the same scepticism which they had learned from the declamations of their schools, and which they ought to have confined to them."

 As we see here classical scepticism (US: skepticism) suffers all issues of classical thought. Clearly, due subjective negation, classical 'opposites' are n¤nexistent in reality.

That example emerges here in a classical, formal, mechanical view of certainty's 'opposite' as uncertainty. But certainty minus uncertainty and vice versa are n¤t zero are they? Real certainty is ensemble probabilistic. Real certainty's quantum c¤mplement is uncertainty.

Enter sophism. For every certainty how many uncertainties are there? However, classically, 'certainty' precludes uncertainty, does it 'not?' What exactly does 'certainty' mean? Reality isn't about 'opposites' is it? Reality is about c¤mplements, quantum c¤mplements!

Also note that all probabilities (all stochastics) are always between (never equal to) zero and one and never negative.

What does Doug mean by that phasement? Probability zero says "X shall never happen." Would you be willing to 'state' ment that with 'certainty?' Probability one says that "X shall happen uniquely." Careful! We have to decide what we mean by 'unique.' Can 'unique' circumstances occur in reality? Do they? Probability depends upon ensembles of repetition. If we have an ensemble can its circumstances be unique?

Enter quantum uncertainty. Maximum probability can only be unity minus N•ih. Similarly, minimum probability can only be zero plus N•ih. See Doug's c. 2000 absoluteness as uncertainty.

Vividly, ad oculos, we eidetify reality is quantum~positive. Why? Reality is a child of flux and flux is always positive. Energy is always positive. Mass is always positive. Mathematical operations upon flux are n¤t and cann¤t be ideally mechanical since flux is durational and may n¤t be 'stopped' for ideal mechanical, 'numerical,' scalarbation. DCNR HotMeme Measurement itself is flux! DCNR HotMeme

We do n¤t believe that Philo, Demea, and Cleanthes grasp what we just wrote. But about 200 years have passed since Hume put his words in their mouths.

Beware classical notions of 'the state.' State is n¤t flux. Flux is phasemental. Institutions are 'state' mental via their state-ic dogma, doctrine, orthodoxy, laws, principles and immutable mores. State is Demos will. State drives quality out of individuals (tries to). State tries to metrically quantify people and their behaviors so they will become predictable drones, good citizens, 'the people' under civil authority. Through metric quantification 'state' attempts to reify, objectively, all in its domain.

Jesus' gnosis (see Gospel of Thomas) quotes Jesus as saying that "finding God" is a wholly individual process, one which individuals must endeavor on their own. Compare that with organized religions which want to teach one 'social' way of finding god, a single way which fits all, AKA "catholicism." Organized religion pursues thought-cop 'certainty' of flock thought AKA consensus. So do organized 'civilizations.' Mao, Bush, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. Ugh! Doug - 6May2006.

Are Philo, Demea, and Cleanthes discussing "organized catholic religion?" Are they discussing "individualized, Essene Jesuit gnostic religion?"

See c¤mplement, ensemble, opposite, phasement, positive, probability, quanta, Planck quanton, reality, scalarbation, sophism, state, uncertainty, unique, etc.

See Doug's c. 2004 What is Wrong with Probability As Value?


"In this view, there appears a great resemblance between the sects of the Stoics [a school founded by Zeno of Citium, 335-263 b.c.] and Pyrrhonians, though perpetual antagonists; and both of them seem founded on this erroneous maxim that what a man can perform sometimes, and in some dispositions, he can perform always, and in every disposition. When the mind, by Stoical reflections, is elevated into a sublime enthusiasm of virtue, and strongly smit with any species of honour or public good ["public good" is usually social positivism, Demos will, social consensus, a tragedy of commons sense (AKA 'vulgarity'], the utmost bodily pain and sufferings will not prevail over such a high sense of duty [ESQ 'virtue']; and it is possible, perhaps, by its means, even to smile and exult in the midst of tortures. If this sometimes may be the case in fact and reality, much more may a philosopher, in his school, or even in his closet, work himself up to such an enthusiasm, and support in imagination the acutest pain or most calamitous event which he can possibly conceive. But how shall he support this enthusiasm itself? The bent of his mind relaxes, and cannot be recalled at pleasure; avocations lead him astray; misfortunes attack him unawares; and the philosopher sinks by degrees into the plebeian.

"I allow of your comparison between the Stoics and Sceptics, replied Philo. But you may observe, at the same time, that though the mind cannot, in Stoicism, support the highest flights of philosophy [why? dichon(uncertainty, certainty)...], yet, even when it sinks lower, it still retains somewhat of its former disposition; and the effects of the Stoic's reasoning will appear in his conduct in common life, and through the whole tenor of his actions. The ancient schools, particularly that of Zeno [n¤t Zeno of Elea n¤t who was n¤t a Stoic, rather, to Doug, a real~gn¤stic, rather Philo's is Zeno of Citium, the Stoic - Doug], produced examples of virtue and constancy which seem astonishing to present times.

Vain Wisdom all and false Philosophy.
Yet with a pleasing sorcery could charm
Pain, for a while, or anguish; and excite
Fallacious Hope, or arm the obdurate breast
With stubborn Patience, as with triple steel.2

"In like manner, if a man has accustomed himself to sceptical considerations on the uncertainty and narrow limits of [dialectical] reason, he will not entirely forget them when he turns his reflection on other subjects; but in all his philosophical principles and reasoning, I dare not say in his common conduct, he will be found different from those, who either never formed any opinions in the case, or have entertained sentiments more favourable to human [dialectical] reason."

2[Milton, Paradise Lost, Bk. II.] These are Hafner Library's footnote and brackets, n¤t Doug's.

If we have time, we should all read Milton's Paradise Lost. William James Sidis recommends The Golden Bough too. Perhaps next iterationings...

Our view is that sceptics treated uncertainty mechanically, formally. But they then concluded "absolute uncertainty is all there is...there is no certainty..." Bogus! They, in our view due their EOOO thing-king, were SOMites.

Quantum_certainty issi quanton(uncertainty,certainty). Why? Absolute flux! But flux is waves and waves are QLOs and quantum reality can 'predict' QLOs. Quantumly we use BAWAM(real_quantum_uncertainty,apparent_quantum_certainty) to expect and anticipate "whatings happenings nextings."

Recall Pirsig's views of classical 'virtue?' Recall Jon and Doug's dialogue regarding Pirsig's view of virtue?

Pirsig's view illustrates classic virtue as ESQ. Thus Jon saw 'virtue' as simply ('psychically') "bad." His view of Greek aretê we model as quanton(DQ,SQ) issi individual_excellence which in Greek we Quantonically intuit would actually read ('pneumatically') martus aritos. Gn¤stically, pneumatically, that reads "individual action (pragma) witnessing (martus) of individual excellence (aritos)." Doug - 9May2006. See our Quantonic memes of 'psychic' vis-à-vis 'pneumatic,' based upon our Elaine Pagels readings.


[Philo continues...] "To whatever length any one may push his speculative principles of scepticism, he must act, I own, and live, and converse, like other men; and for this conduct he is not obliged to give any other reason, than the absolute necessity he lies under of so doing. If he ever carries his speculations further than this necessity constrains him, and philosophizes either on natural or moral subjects, he is allured by a certain pleasure and satisfaction which he finds in employing himself after that manner. He considers besides, that every one, even in common life, is constrained to have more or less of this philosophy; that from our earliest infancy we make continual advances in forming more general principles of conduct and reasoning [this gradual accretion of 'know ledge' is how science declares its own 'success']; that the larger experience we acquire, and the stronger reason we are endued with, we always render our principles the more general and comprehensive; and that what we call philosophy is nothing but a more regular and methodical operation of the same kind [We disagree here: classical science is about what is 'true,' and classical philosophy is about a meta notion of what is 'truth?']. To philosophize on such subjects, is nothing essentially different from reasoning on common life [If common reason finds its bases in dialectic, then we wholly disagree with Philo's remarks here.]; and we may only expect greater stability [See? Philo believes reality is stable, holds still, concrete! Henri Louis Bergson showed us that two of classicists' greatest self delusions are: reality is stable, and objects in reality are independent of one another. We agree with Bergson: reality is absolute change and waves~flux routinely commingle one another.], if not greater truth, from our philosophy, on account of its exacter and more scrupulous method of proceeding. [Here, Philo comes across as a nearly ideal SOMite. Doug - 9May2006.]

"But when we look beyond human affairs and the properties of the surrounding bodies: when we carry our speculations into the two eternities, before and after the present state of things; into the creation and formation of the universe; the existence and properties of spirits; the powers and operations of one universal Spirit existing without beginning and without end; omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, infinite, and incomprehensible — we must be far removed from the smallest tendency to scepticism not to be apprehensive, that we have here got quite beyond the reach of our faculties. [Philo appears to be saying that dialectical classicism appears naïve. We affirm that potential intuition, vigorously!] So long as we confine our speculations to trade, or morals, or politics, or criticism, we make appeals, every moment, to common sense and experience, which strengthen our philosophical conclusions, and remove, at least in part, the suspicion which we so justly entertain with regard to every reasoning that is very subtile and refined. But, in theological reasonings, we have not this advantage; while, at the same time, we are employed upon objects, which, we must be sensible, are too large for our grasp, and of all others, require most to be familiarized to our apprehension. We are like foreigners in a strange country, to whom every thing must seem suspicious, and who are in danger every moment of transgressing against the laws and customs of the people with whom they live and converse. We know not how far we ought to trust our vulgar [i.e., 'common sense'] methods of reasoning in such a subject; since, even in common life, and in that province which is peculiarly appropriated to them, we cannot account for them, and are entirely guided by a kind of instinct or necessity in employing them."

 See Henri Louis Bergson on absolute and necessity.

From any Quantonics perspective classical necessity is the bane of classical 'mind.'

To place that perspective in a religious con(m)text...classicists veritably could 'not' understand ancient sophists, gnostics, and gnostic-Jesus. Today classicists cann¤t understand quantum memes and memeos.

Elaine Pagels says that Jesus and his apostles juxtaposed 'psychic' and 'pneumatic.' Psychics correspond what we are describing as classicists. Pneumatics correspond fairly well our heuristics of quantum mind as quantum stage. See Pagels' The Gnostic Paul.

Psychic means 'mind-soul.'

Pneumatic means 'spiritual~breathings.' Recall this as kin of James' description of individual spirituality.

Jesus referred 'psychics' as 'the called.' Jesus referred 'pneumatics' as 'the elect.' Jesus' elect are few and gnostic. Jesus' called are many and brain dead. To grasp Nag Hammadi and gnostic texts one must learn to do BAWAM reading. For example Paul in his Pauline gospels spoke in two grammars: CTMs and QTMs. Classical and gnostic.

Psychics read biblical texts literally. Pneumatics read biblical texts mimicking Paul's speaking style: we call that "quantum hermeneutic reading." For examples of Doug's infant efforts in this vein see Doug's Gnostic Update 2. To us this is a huge part of "The Grail Secret."

Quantonics adepts can gain much by reading Elaine Pagels' opus. If you wish to keep close ties with what Doug just wrote, read Pagels' The Gnostic Paul, Trinity Press, 1975. Exceptional! Exquisite! Expository! Exegetic! Doug - 7May2006. See our Classical_vis-à-vis Quantum Religion Recommended Reading.

But what were gnostics, including both Jesus and Paul trying to do? They were teaching and issuing "messages" (gospel) to quantons(elect,called). It's like every other word is Greek and every other word is Esperanto. 'The elect' understand both Greek and Esperanto and 'the called' only understand Esperanto. Recall that 'catholics' used to do this in English speaking countries and Spanish speaking countries and...using Latin and a local language.

Psychics can only grasp literal classical 'ideas,' so they listen classically and interpret classically and as a result "spiritually languish." Pneumatics can grasp metamemes in language and symbols and gain election in their individual processes of "finding God."

If all of this is a "design" then why are few greater than many? It appears, at least to us it does, that those who really want to know, to be k~now~ings, can. That some of us apparently couldn't was problematic for Jesus and his apostle elects: Didymos (i.e., Jesus' twin) Judas Thomas, Mary~John, and Paul included.

"So long as we confine our speculations to trade, or morals, or politics, or criticism, we make appeals, every moment, to common sense and experience, which strengthen our philosophical conclusions, and remove, at least in part, the suspicion which we so justly entertain with regard to every reasoning that is very subtile and refined."

If common sense and experience are interpreted and judged dialectically, that text is just awful!

Real morals, politics, and criticism are n¤t ideal classical objects which may be analysed dialectically. Actually, they are more like what Philo is about to describe as religion. Quantum, what we mean by real, morals, politics, and criticism are subjective, qualitative, wave~like, and thus only describable as ensemble likelihood omnistributionings.

For those technical, perhaps a few of refined quantique, among you, we want to emphasize relevance of our underlined words.

Kurt Gödel was, in our view, a sublime sophist. He quantumly used recursive, fractal, self~referent, Autiot~like "Gödel sentences" to describe 'numbers as real' semantics. "Gödel sentences" are sophisms, quantum sophisms, Autiot sophisms! (Some-many attempt to view them dialectically, mechanically, 'psychically,' literally, to no avail... ponder 'literally' as 'lite' rally... )

All sophisms may be quantum~m¤daled as quantum~flux, thence QLOs. Add link - 1Apr2012 - Doug.


Quantum_M¤daled_Reality issi Gödel_Sentences issi quantons(QLOs,QLOs)

Another way to show this is:

QMR issi quantons(fuzzons,fuzzons)

Why is this crucial to grasp?

Classicists describe (actually believe they can 'define') reality using reified axiomatic 'state' ments about mechanical properties of dialectically lisr 'objects.'

Quantumists describe reality using stochastic phasements about "flux is crux" probability, plausibility, and likelihood omnistributions of quantons.

One exemplar is a quantum~hologram which is Energy~Wellings Interrelationshipings as quantons which look like this:


which are pneumatically soroning Gödel Sentences.

Doug - 23Mar2010

In any quantum hologram, (any human brain viewed holographically), a holographic nexus is a quanton. That is how we describe quantum~reality!

Quantons are "Gödel sentences" describing nexi in quantum~holograms!

We gain semantic leverage in our grasp of a meme of quantonic quantum~coherent nesting.

Doug - 23Mar2010, 27Sep2006, 1Apr2012.

Quantum reality is a strange land indeed. It is queer and barely fathomable by classical sentience.

However, we must proceed. We must leave SOMland's mythos and enter quantas' emersos.

See our QELRs of general, moral, object, property, science, subject, true, etc. Ponder why 'scientific fact' is n¤t and may n¤t be general... Doug - 9May2006.


"All sceptics pretend, that, if reason be considered in an abstract view, it furnishes invincible arguments against itself; and that we could never retain any conviction or assurance, on any subject, were not the sceptical reasonings so refined and subtile, that they are not able to counterpoise the more solid and more natural arguments derived from the senses and experience. But it is evident, whenever our arguments lose this advantage, and run wide of common life, that the most refined scepticism comes to be upon a footing with them, and is able to oppose and counterbalance them. The one has no more weight than the other. The mind must remain in suspense between them; and it is that very suspense or balance, which is the triumph of scepticism.

"But I observe, says Cleanthes, with regard to you, Philo, and all speculative sceptics, that your doctrine and practice are as much at variance in the most abstruse points of theory as in the conduct of common life. Wherever evidence discovers itself, you adhere to it, notwithstanding your pretended scepticism; and I can observe, too, some of your sect to be as decisive as those who make greater professions of certainty and assurance. In reality, would not a man be ridiculous, who pretended to reject Newton's explication of the wonderful phenomenon of the rainbow, because that explication gives a minute anatomy of the rays of light — a subject, forsooth, too refined for human comprehension? [N¤! Emphatically n¤!] And what would you say to one, who, having nothing particular to object to the arguments of Copernicus and Galilæo for the motion of the earth, should withhold his assent, on that general principle, that these subjects were too magnificent and remote to be explained by the narrow and fallacious [dialectical] reason of mankind? [Doug would say to green bolded text, "Amen!" N¤t a 'dialectic sceptical' "amen," rather a quantum "amen." Dialectical scepticism lacks qua to critique dialectical analyticity. Quantum think~king has qua to do so. (qua - "in a capacity...") Doug - 9May2006.]

Here, Philo's description of scepticism sounds quantum. We like it.

Trouble is, reality is n¤t common-sensically objective!

Reality is flux! Flux is qualitative and subjective due its animacy, its included~middle, its everywhere~associativity, its arbitrary heterogeneous spatio~temporality and spatio~temporal omnistributionings of all flux.

Objects have specific "holds still" state-ic Cartesian locus. Flux is n¤n lisr! We cann¤t scalarbatively 'measure' flux; flux is ensemblings of quala. We have to monitor (QELRed we should say "omnitor") fluxings. See phlux.

Notice Philo's approximation of an included-middle: "The mind must remain in suspense between them..." Adepts recognize phrasing like that as kin of our "quantum~straddle." Excellent!

Copernicus assumed that our Sun was a fixed reference 'point' (in any Cartesian, Newtonian sense) about which its planets moved in 'closed' orbits. But our Sun is moving around our Milky Way at about 180 miles per second and our Milky Way is moving around ??? at likely 10x that 'velocity,' and so on...

So all Sun's planetary orbits are cycloidally 'open.' (Multiversal open cycloidicity is a vivid tell of quantum gravitation. See E. T. Bell's Men of Mathematics, 'Pascal,' a MoQite! Cycloids offer provocative classical notions, perhaps we should call them "quantum~sophist~paradice," of circle-squaring and constant time with variable distance: quantum quintessentials of quantum gravity! Profound, indeed, since quanton 'circle,' as classically ideal ESQ, exists n¤t ihn quantum rælihty! Doug - 27Jun2006.) They do n¤t form closed circles. They do n¤t form closed Keplerian ellipses. There are n¤ 'fixed' references! There is n¤ such classical notion as "zero momentum," anywhere in reality's multiverses, period. See our critique of Itzhak Bentov's Stalking the Wild Pendulum titled A Quantum Pendulum.

9 "There is indeed a kind of brutish and ignorant scepticism, as you well observed, which gives the vulgar a general prejudice against what they do not easily understand, and makes them reject every principle which requires elaborate reasoning to prove and establish it. This species of scepticism is fatal to knowledge, not to religion; since we find, that those who make greatest profession of it, give often their assent, not only to the great truths of Theism and natural theology, but even to the most absurd tenets which a traditional superstition has recommended to them. They firmly believe in witches, though they will not believe nor attend to the most simple proposition of Euclid. But the refined and philosophical sceptics fall into an inconsistence of an opposite nature. They push their researches into the most abstruse corners of science; and their assent attends them in every step, proportioned to the evidence which they meet with. They are even obliged to acknowledge, that the most abstruse and remote objects are those which are best explained by philosophy. Light is in reality anatomized. The true system of the heavenly bodies is discovered and ascertained. But the nourishment of bodies by food is still an inexplicable mystery. The cohesion of the parts of matter is still incomprehensible. These sceptics, therefore, are obliged, in every question, to consider each particular evidence apart, and proportion their assent to the precise degree of evidence which occurs. This is their practice in all natural, mathematical, moral, and political science. And why not the same, I ask, in the theological and religious? Why must conclusions of this nature be alone rejected on the general presumption of the insufficiency of human reason, without any particular discussion of the evidence? Is not such an unequal conduct a plain proof of prejudice and passion?" [We agree. Sentient reason is fallible yet has nearly unlimited potential. Insufficient is a relative term. Many of these terms are subtly and n¤t so subtly quantum~relative. N¤t Einsteinian relative: his relativity is intentionally objective.]

We unearth here an assumed dichotomy of science and religion when it comes to 'reason.'

We and our mentors have expounded this one into notoriety.

Human reason is falacious when it supposes reality is syllogistic by Aristotelian authority. Aristotle blew it!

Subject and object, mind and body, immaterial and material, religion and science are n¤t mechanically, analytically, dialectically provable contradictories!

They are quantum c¤mplements of all and ¤thær. Subqjæct is ihn ¤bjæct and ¤bjæct is ihn subqjæct, mihnd is ihn b¤dy and b¤dy is ihn mihnd, immaterial is ihn material and material is ihn immaterial, religion is ihn science and science is ihn religion, and all of that is ihn all and all is ihn all of that. We just described quantum coherence as quantum cowithinitness of classically-apparent autonomies.


Classically object is 'above' subject. Quantumly classical 'objects' cannot 'evolve,' and subjective reality evolves with ease, so in that sense subjective memeos of reality are quantumly above objective notions of reality.

Subject is quality. Object is quantity. Quality is above quantity! Subject is dynamic. Object is state-ic. Dynamic is more highly evolved and evolving than state-ic.

Objective thing-king cann¤t explain biological nourishment. Subjective think-king easily explains biological nourishment: Flux eats flux. Objects cann¤t 'eat.'

See absurd, opposite, prove, superstition, etc.


"Our senses, you say, are fallacious; our understanding erroneous; our ideas, even of the most familiar objects — extension, duration, motion — full of absurdities and contradictions. You defy me to solve the difficulties, or reconcile the repugnancies which you discover in them. I have not capacity for so great an undertaking: I have not leisure for it: I perceive it to be superfluous. Your own conduct, in every circumstance, refutes your principles, and shews the firmest reliance on all the received maxims of science, morals, prudence, and behaviour.

"I shall never assent to so harsh an opinion as that of a celebrated writer,3 who says, that the Sceptics are not a sect of philosophers: they are only a sect of liars. I may, however, affirm (I hope without offence), that they are a sect of jesters or railers. But for my part, whenever I find myself disposed to mirth and amusement, I shall certainly choose my entertainment of a less perplexing and abstruse nature. A comedy, a novel, or at most a history, seems a more natural recreation than such metaphysical subtilties and abstractions.

"In vain would the sceptic make a distinction between science and common life, or between one science and another. The arguments employed in all, if just, are of a similar nature, and contain the same force and evidence. Or if there be any difference among them, the advantage lies entirely on the side of theology and natural religion. Many principles of mechanics are founded on very abstruse reasoning; yet no man who has any pretensions to science, even no speculative sceptic, pretends to entertain the least doubt with regard to them. The Copernican system contains the most surprising paradox, and the most contrary to our natural conceptions, to appearances, and to our very senses: yet even monks and inquisitors are now constrained to withdraw their opposition to it. And shall Philo, a man of so liberal a genius and extensive knowledge, entertain any general undistinguished scruples with regard to the religious hypothesis, which is founded on the simplest and most obvious arguments, and, unless it meets with artificial obstacles, has such easy access and admission into the mind of man?"

3L'art de penser [Antoine (the great) Arnauld and others; La Logique ou l'art de penser (Port-Royal Logic) 1662.]

Quantum reality is a n¤n negative reality. Flux is positive energy. Positive energy cann¤t classically become 'null.' Quantum energy can be moved around and coherently~entropically mutated, but its reality is perpetual. Simply, humans cann¤t directly sense some coherent quantum reality (photons and their siblings are notable exceptions) and all of isocoherent quantum reality.

Classical negation becomes 'only apparent' when we recognize that two positive fluxings can 'cancel' each other. But that, my friend, is n¤t classical 'negation.' When we say A minus A is zero, that is a classical, bogus negation which 'results' in null: "'no' thing."

However when flux 'cancels,' both (indeed many) classically 'non' apparent energies are still real! Naught is nullified. We still have two complementing quantum positives! It is troublesome to desnouer them, however.

For some mind lifting examples see Hey and Walters' The Quantum Universe. Look for pictures of tympani with iron filings on their skins.

Doug - 9May2006.

(Our Earth's people are claiming an energy 'shortage.' What we just showed you is that energy is ubiquitous and unlimited. All we have to learn how to do is desnouer quanton(Jekyll,Hyde). Really! This is quantum reality folks! And our USA has creative talents to make it happen if we are just willing to move from CTMs to QTMs.)


"And here we may observe, continued he, turning himself towards Demea, a pretty curious circumstance in the history of the sciences. After the union of philosophy with the popular religion, upon the first establishment of Christianity, nothing was more usual, among all religious teachers, than declamations against reason, against the senses, against every principle derived merely from human research and enquiry. All the topics of the ancient Academics were adopted by the fathers; and thence propagated for several ages in every school and pulpit throughout Christendom. The Reformers embraced the same principles of reasoning, or rather declamation; and all panegyrics on the excellency of faith, were sure to be interlarded with some severe strokes of satire against natural reason. A celebrated prelate too,4 of the Romish communion, a man of the most extensive learning, who wrote a demonstration of Christianity, has also composed a treatise, which contains all the cavils of the boldest and most determined Pyrrhonism. Locke seems to have been the first Christian who ventured openly to assert, that faith was nothing but a species of reason; that religion was only a branch of philosophy; and that a chain of arguments, similar to that which established any truth in morals, politics, or physics, was always employed in discovering all the principles of theology, natural and revealed. The ill use which Bayle and other libertines made of the philosophical scepticism of the fathers and first reformers, still further propagated the judicious sentiment of Mr. Locke. And it is now in a manner avowed, by all pretenders to reasoning and philosophy, that atheist and sceptic are almost synonymous. And as it is certain that no man is in earnest when he professes the latter principle, I would fain hope that there are as few who seriously maintain the former."

4Mons. Huet.

Only quality thought which "...established any truth in morals, politics, or physics..." must claim, due reality's own quantumness, that change is absolute and that 'truth' is an agent of its own change.

In general...notions of classical, stabile, OSFA truth founded in SOM's Bases of Judgment are corrupt and bogus.


"Don't you remember, said Philo, the excellent saying of Lord Bacon on this head? That a little philosophy, replied Cleanthes, makes a man an Atheist: a great deal converts him to religion. That is a very judicious remark too, said Philo. But what I have in my eye is another passage, where, having mentioned David's fool, who said in his heart there is no God, this great philosopher observes, that the atheists nowadays have a double share of folly; for they are not contented to say in their hearts there is no God, but they also utter that impiety with their lips, and are thereby guilty of multiplied indiscretion and imprudence. Such people, though they were ever so much in earnest, cannot, methinks, be very formidable.

"But though you should rank me in this class of fools, I cannot forbear communicating a remark that occurs to me, from the history of the religious and irreligious scepticism with which you have entertained us. It appears to me, that there are strong symptoms of priestcraft in the whole progress of this affair. During ignorant ages, such as those which followed the dissolution of the ancient schools, the priests perceived, that atheism, deism, or heresy of any kind, could only proceed from the presumptuous questioning of received opinions, and from a belief that human reason was equal to every thing. Education had then a mighty influence over the minds of men, and was almost equal in force to those suggestions of the senses and common understanding, by which the most determined sceptic must allow himself to be governed. But at present, when the influence of education is much diminished, and men, from a more open commerce of the world, have learned to compare the popular principles of different nations and ages, our sagacious divines have changed their whole system of philosophy, and talk the language of Stoics, Platonists, and Peripatetics, not that of Pyrrhonians and Academics. If we distrust human reason, we have now no other principle to lead us into religion. Thus, sceptics in one age, dogmatists in another — whichever system best suits the purpose of these reverend gentlemen, in giving them an ascendant over mankind — they are sure to make it their favourite principle, and established tenet."

If you will allow us to very slightly modify this quote by adding a single bracketed comment, we can wholly agree with it:

"That a little philosophy, replied Cleanthes, makes a man an Atheist: a great deal converts him to [individual, gnostic] religion."

Socialized religion, in Doug's private and esoteric quantum perspectives, is a bane of humanity and individuals should forego its dogmatic Demos will, intellectual abuse, rape, and corruption. There is n¤ real 'catholic' OSFA religion! Period! Further, atheism, is a social religion. Root out all orthodox, Irenaeus-Constantinian-heretical (i.e., individual choice as heresy, thus catholic) dogma and hierarchical and hegemonical dogma. We have used this too often but it is so prescient, "The first divine was the first rogue who met the first fool." Voltaire.

Notice that dogma backwards is "am god."

Go gn¤stic and get your religious and philosophic self~respect back.

14 " It is [only classically] very natural, said Cleanthes, for men to embrace those principles, by which they find they can best defend their ['orthodox,' OSFA] doctrines; nor need we have any recourse to priestcraft [however, OSFA 'catholicism,' the COORs, says dogmatically, "we must"] to account for so reasonable an expedient. And, surely nothing can afford a stronger presumption, that any set of principles are true, and ought to be embraced, than to observe that they tend to the confirmation of true religion, and serve to confound the cavils [unecessary, read classically 'uncertain' objections] of atheists, Libertines, and Freethinkers of all denominations."

Cleanthes just perjured quantum reality!

Hope you are enjoying reading this as much as we are enjoying doing it...

Thank you for reading!

Doug - 11May2006

Next installments will take awhile since we are doing about 6-7 reviews in parallel.


To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 # 368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

©Quantonics, Inc., 2006-2020 — Rev. 23Mar2010  PDR — Created 26Apr2006  PDR
(27Jun2006 rev - Attach 'omnitor' disclosures to two comments. Vivify cycloidicity as a tell of quantum gravitation.)
(5Sep2006 rev - Repair minor typos. Superpose 'ad oculos' link.)
(27Sep2006 rev - Add pink text box update on "Gödel sentences.")
(24Nov2006 rev - Add pre review comments link.)
(21Nov2007 rev - Add 'Aiken on Hume's Excellence' anchor.)
(21Sep2008 rev - Reformat.)
(23Mar2010 rev - Reformat slightly. Repair typos.)
(1Apr2012 rev - Add p. 7 blue box commentary link to 'A Reservoir of Wave Functions,' used as a quantum~m¤daling tool.)