The Bible clearly says they are not real. The Bible also clearly says that they are real.
I am a pragmatist. Most people examining deep philosophical and the theological questions with no clear answer are ignorant idiots.
Digression on quantum theory and too clever by half idiots:
Some of them, including perhaps myself, are not simple idiots but too clever by half idiots.
I will give those investigating the issue of the Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and the Everett Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics credit for being very smart and very well informed idiots, but the rest of them are for the most part just plain idiots. Me, I favor the Minecraft Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Reality is video game generated by God. He instantiates the people he chooses, and instantiates the the things that they observe, including the people and creatures that they observe, but does not necessarily instantiate the people they observe quite as fully, and similarly down the line for the things observed by people observed by people observed by people chosen by God for full instantiation. So the far side of the moon is real, but its reality runs considerably thinner. Merely discussing this speculation makes me yet another too clever by half idiot also. But I have an excuse for trying to be too clever by half, for if you try to apply either the Bohr interpretation or the Everett interpretation in the case where there is more than one observer, you get into trouble, while both solutions work if there is one supreme observer who gets to make things real, and every other creature gets to make things real to the extent that the one supreme observer makes that creature real. Of course, it is quite possible that the only reason we get into trouble is that we are not smart enough. Or, as Roger Penrose speculated, that our theory of Quantum Mechanics is wrong, and inherently fails physical tests in some cases — complex biological structures, quantum systems of very large dimension, and gravity. But the God theory is much easier to comprehend than Penrose’s somewhat incoherent speculations in the direction of a better theory, so I am going to stick with it, while keeping an open mind in the Penrose direction. And few people are smart enough to notice that both Bohr and Everett become incoherent with multiple observers of equal status, so they should stick with Bohr or Everett. Indeed few people are smart enough to comprehend what Bohr and Everett were speculating about, so the rest should stay clear of quantum theory altogether.
Back on topic : Demons
There is an excellent practical reason for disbelieving in demons. If you do not believe in a demon, then this radically reduces its power over you.
Thus, for example, if you believe that the Awesome and Mighty Covid Demon is merely yet another new flu, then when you get Covid, all that will happen is that you get another flu. And if you also believe that if you have never been jabbed, and came down with Covid, you are now a Golden Pureblood and will never get Covid again (though you well might get yet another new flu) then you will never get Covid again.
Similarly, if you do not believe in the Depression Demon, you are not going to get depression. You might well get sad when bad things happen, and sad and fearful when it seems like bad things might well happen, but you are not going to get depressed. If bad things do happen, you will get over them, and if they might well happen but they don’t you will get over that even faster.
Similarly, if you do not believe in the post traumatic stress demon, you will not suffer post traumatic stress. You will of course get mighty stressed when something traumatic happens, but then you are soon going to get a good nights sleep and hearty meal, and laugh about the bullet missing, or the bullet hitting, as the case may be. You might occasionally wake with a rapidly fading vague memory of a nightmare, which you are unable to remember clearly on waking, and completely unable to remember at all a few minutes after waking.
Depression and post traumatic stress are iatrogenic diseases. They are a demonic priesthood putting a hex on their faithful.
There is also an excellent practical reason for believing in demons. It makes the behavior of our ruling elite so much more intelligible, and thus enables you to put on the armor of God, protecting you from being driven crazy by their craziness.
As Charlie Kirk, martyr for Christ, told us, the proposition that Church and Easter are inessential activities, but bars, race rioting, and burning down Wendy’s are essential activities makes so much more sense if you assume our rulers are possessed by demons. Really, it is hard to explain Fauci weaponising a formerly harmless bat virus any other way, and even harder to explain why he has not yet been executed for crimes against humanity.
Charlie Kirk’s assassin was radicalised by hanging out on forums full of trannies, and a whole lot of trannies give an overwhelming impression of being dead bodies controlled by hostile alien entities. When one runs into a trannie, it is sometimes hard to disbelieve in demons.
A deeper understanding of the Demons, Real or Metaphorical may be to acknowledge demons exist but our comprehension can only be metaphorical due to our innate limitations. C. S. Lewis, in a bit of literary whimsy in That Hideous Strength, dubs angelic beings including the fallen as Macrobes, as invisible to us as microbes but due to their enormity. And what can be more titanic than trying to grasp meaning of these concepts?
There are tough as nails military veterans who [*deleted because you are embedded in what Based Camp calls the urban monoculture and I call the bubble, and people in that bubble do not know any tough as nails military veterans*]
Re. Quantum mechanics. The Bell inequality and the Aspect experiment really did it for me. Two entangled particles, with arbitrary separation, have correlated properties, the values of which are not assigned until at least the value on one of the particles is measured. One would think this implies superluminal communication. But reality is structured so you can’t make use of this for communication. It’s like the universe has two modes, user and supervisor mode, and we only have access to user mode functions. I also have what I call “the dollar metaphor”. You have a crisp new dollar bill and you go to the bank and deposit it. Some time later you go to the bank and withdraw the dollar, and the teller gives you a dollar bill. But wait, you complain to the teller that this isn’t the same dollar you deposited. The teller will look at you like you’re some kind of nut!!! A dollar in the bank has no physical reality except as information. Likewise, a photon in transit has no physical reality except as information. It only becomes “real” when it’s detected. So it’s meaningless to ask what slit it goes thru unless you contrive to detect which slit it goes thru.
Plank’s constant is the qbit resolution of the simulation.
Awhile back Greg Cochran quipped the Hawaiian natives protesting and blocking the new telescope on Mauna Kea was the Universe saving memory because the new telescope would have increased deep space resolution and universe would have had to devote more resources instantiating reality in deep space.
Back in the Army, we used to entangle our watches during the mission briefing: ready, ready, hack!
During the mission, I could instantly know what time everyone else’s watch read by simply glancing at my wrist. It was spooky.
Try it with hacking the watch after you’ve all separated.
The issue is not when both detectors are perfectly aligned, then your watch analogy works. The issue is the correlations when the detectors are offset at random arbitrary angles. They then correlate as the cos(A), just like polarized waves. But if you try to model this as discrete photons with intrinsic pre-ordained properties determining how they will react with the detector, it is mathematically impossible. The theorem is known as the Bell Inequality. Modelling it as post ordained properties works fine, but then how does the other particle “know”?
In my analogy, the watches represent the particles. After synchronization, particles may be separated by great distance and the act of observing one effectively observes the other as well. They aren’t entangled, merely synchronized then separated. No spooky, greater than c, action at a distance required.
I suppose I should also say that I believe all particles, including photons, have real dimensions, like radius. I believe they also have real properties like mass and usually spin. A photon traveling at c, and spinning at c, must stack a spin to carry more energy. And thus appears to tumble, creating a spin wave. So, I don’t believe in wave functions or their collapse, or unmeasured qualities being “assigned” by measurement. (The cat is either alive or dead, not both.) I believe in physical particles with real spins. And that all interaction is the result of physical contact, whether baryonic or photonic.
This is unresponsive. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox has been repeatedly explained to you. The watches do not parallel the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.
This in turn leads to the problem of what Quantum Mechanics can mean in a universe with no one specially privileged ultimate observer, to which no one has quite managed any coherent answer. Though there might well be a coherent answer that we do not quite understand.
Maybe there is a specially privileged ultimate observer, or at least a priviledged inertial system. There is cosmic background radiation and only one inertial system where this background radiation is isotropic. Any observer in any other inertial system will see blue-shifted backround radiation in one direction and red-shifted background radiation in the opposite direction.
So how does that fit to relativity that no inertial system is special?
Real yet not real. Not real yet real.
Demons and the wave function both.
I subscribe to the DOOM theology of demons: Real, but you can kill them with a 12ga.
It can transform one’s relationship to a difficult or dangerous person if one sees his negative-to-dangerous qualities not as adjectives — indelible properties of the noun — but as separate “first order” nouns themselves, phenomena and entities riding around upon and inside him.
While the organic basis of schizophrenia is unknown, I’ve read that modelling it as the victim being harassed by demons seems to give better predictive and therapeutic results to the sufferer. As usual no traditional medical practitioner would do this or they would lose their license.
Predictively, the victim is being constantly harasses by “voices” that demand he do things that are not in his best interest. They also interfere with the victims sleep.
Therapeutically, telling the sufferer these are external demons harassing him and to tell them to go back to Hell where they belong gives better results than telling the victim he has an intrinsic, organic problem
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*] Not believing in depression or PTSD doesn’t make them go away.[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
On anecdotal observation, all cases of depression or ptsd, all cases sadness or stress that persist unreasonably long, are iatrogenic, all of them, every single one, are the result of a demon worshipping priesthood, the shrinks, putting a hex on members of their congregation.
Men who fought in [pick your post ww2 conflict] got stabbed in the back by their own government, repeatedly. It is reasonable that they remain stressed/sad/angered for a long, long time becuase the trauma is continuous. They identify with the next generation’s betrayal. PTSD likely is real, but is misdiagnosing the source of the trauma.
Maybe, but that is not what I see anecdotally. It is all obviously iatrogenic.
I went to the psychologist once in my life to ask for advice on how to handle my grandmother who was going crazy after my father’s sudden unexpected death. Instead of giving advice he started trying to dig into my mind, ask how I was feeling, and what I was thinking, which pissed me off badly because that went directly against why I told him I was there for. I left immediately.
I agree that there can be iatrogenic effects, but people would have to be pretty weak willed to suggestion for that to be the case, and that’s sort of incomprehensable to me.
I have never been diagnosed with PTSD, but nearly a decade after having been shook up pretty bad, I still have frequent flashbacks. They don’t bother me anymore. So as far as certain sypmtoms being real, I can only conclude “PTSD” is real enough in the sense trauma does shake you up for a while, but it’s probably massively over diagnosed and misunderstood.
People are naturally inclined to be helpful and cooperative. You get asked a bunch of leading questions, and helpful and pleasant answers to those questions are something like “Yes”. And then you have satisfied a diagnosis of mental illness — which can cause immediate loss of rights, and then you are under pressure to continue being helpful and cooperative. Helpful and cooperative being continuing to wallow in your troubles, real and imaginary.
The modern view of PTSD is highly likely complete bs.
Someone once discussed PTSD as a signalling game, in which the ‘patient’ is encouraged to display the symptoms. Human nature being what it is, virtue-signaling and all that, the patient acquiesces. Time goes by, the behavior engrains itself.
Depression, same story. I don’t know too many folks with PTSD, know a few with depression. Always, my instinct is to tell them to stop wanting to make the world revolve around themselves. Which is of course kind of mean and not to say that being depressed is at times not an entirely logical reaction, but persistent depression is, to my experience, a state people intentionally persist in. A depressed woman will purposely spill her coffee, just to have something to complain about.
Direct personal experience here. I was more than “encouraged to display the symptoms. I was asked a bunch of leading questions, which sounded completely weird and alien to me, utterly foreign to my lived experience, and I just kept telling the doctor, “No”, or “not in the slightest”, or “never”. Many years later I figured out that what he was asking about was a medicalised and pathologised version of the normal person’s normal response to stress, force fitting it into an alien and hostile frame, but at the time, and for years afterwards, this did not occur to me. Even though I was kind of badly shook up at the time, the framing was such that I completely did not recognise that as in any way relevant to what he was on about.
The doctor became frustrated and cross about this, and wound up commanding and demanding that I confess to suffering the required symptoms. It developed into a straight up high pressure conflict between the patient, me truthfully saying that I was experiencing nothing in the slightest resembling what he was on about, and him insisting, browbeating, and demanding that I was. It was like a cop trying to pressure me into confessing to whatever will make his quota. (By the way, cops have never pressured me to confess to anything of which I was actually guilty) The shrink’s stuff might have been from Mars. Though more likely from hell.
So, someone is kind of vulnerable and highly suggestible because he has just had a very bad time, confesses under high pressure interrogation to a mental illness, and then the doctor has power over him, and can compel the captive to keep playing along. And the more the doctor’s victim plays along, the more power the doctor gets over him. And then the doctor arranges for the victim to get some kind of disability payment, and then the victim is completely screwed, because participating in the crimes of the doctor.
“Oh woe is me, I just woke up from a dreadful nightmare”
“You poor thing, what was the nightmare?”
Suddenly realising he cannot remember, patient makes something up, and having made it up, feels even sorrier for himself than he already does.
But just as the two times when a cop tried to pressure a confession out of me, the doctor was going down the wrong rabbit hole.
The shrink catches someone in a brief moment of weakness and vulnerability, slaps a permanent label on him that gives him a permanent grip over his victim, and then pressure and incentivize his victim to wallow in the diagnosis. If their victim goes along with the diagnosis, the shrink gets power, the shrink then applies that power to get the victim to go along with diagnosis, mixing persuasion with coercion and intimidation like a cop trying to get enough confessions to make his quota.
Islamic Iranian Armed Queers USAID Soros Jewry NGO
https://twitter.com/JamesHartline/status/1967787015866663149
Does anyone deny that all of the above are of demons.
The revolution against the [White Christian] West spans thousands of organizations that may not be formally linked but are marching in unison toward the revolution.
And they are all backed by Globalist Elites and their Politicians at the top.
Ermiya Fanaeian caught my eye earlier today as she seems quite the character. I’ve seen her listed as Iranian and Palestinian. She’s more pleasing on the eyes than the typical Fairy Hardcastle in those positions, yet she identifies as male.
With her ties to the US State Dept. as well as the UN, this gonna git gud.
Sorry man, those Fanaeian pics are old she blimped up, nor are Leftists giving me wood anytime soon.
https://x.com/Patriotdadev77/status/1967976104167448964
Gutman on the Evil Demonic Spell
https://x.com/Girlpatriot1974/status/1967748671832986002
Ancient WQ
https://x.com/sovey_X/status/1967894513550233734
Demons historically like power, destruction, demonic worship, the countless bizarre developments over the past 30 years at least.
Starbucks Corp AnHero’s itself
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1967824471282360496
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/elderly-supsect-chalie-kirk-assassination-tried-distract-police-real-shooter
Pedo Leftist George Zinn exposed as self-conspirator
‘Nihilistic Violent Extremism’ Spreads: FBI’s Patel Confirms 1,700 Domestic Terrorism Cases
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bondi-faces-rare-conservative-rage-hate-speech-comments
https://x.com/FedPoasting/status/1968004131244880079
The republicans are currently setting up the infrastructure that will ensure that the democrats can put us in jail for saying words like retard and faggot.
You have the absolute right to NOT serve whoever you don’t want to serve, just as you have the absolute right to trespass and throw anyone off your property for any or no reason at all, just as you can fire anyone not aligned with serving your company or customers.
Now the copy place could be sued for non-performance of paid work order contract.
And you can still tell them to go fuck themselves for being retarded gay niggers… which their actions and appearance in the video seemed to indicate they in fact are.
https://x.com/FlagAndFire/status/1967808199131607484
Apes provide yet another opportunity for social studies
Cut this freedom of speech bullshit. That is normality bias. If the Democrats are ever allowed to regain power, the problem is not going to be that we will not be able call people retards, the problem is going to be that they will kill everyone.
It is win or die.
Charlie Kirk did not die for what progressives are calling freedom of speech — drag queen story hour with drag queens humping little boys on the library floor, burning flags, burning churches, and tearing down monuments — he died for the ability to hold a conversation. The left is not prepared to hold a conversation, and that is why war is unavoidable. We cannot agree on a compromise between what they want and what we want because they refuse to comprehend what we want. So they have to end us, or we have to end them.
Don’t be absurd. The left already was doing things like that.
Attacking, fighting to win, is effective if done right. The assault on USAID, for example, showed that.
She’s probably too good looking and light skinned to get away with just being a normal “she/her” in those circles.
No kidding! One only has to hear what they sound like when they speak! To my ears, “tranny voice” sounds a bit like someone talking from the bottom of a well, or like one of the Visitors, the reptilian aliens disguised as people, from the old TV series V.
It’s strange and echo-like.
Not all of them sound like that, but the ones who do… it’s very obvious.
And the trannies with creepy voices also have creepy movements. They look like they are being teleoperated from another dimension by a creature who has a different form.
This one is clearly needs demons exorcized
https://x.com/damienslash/status/1966918437122248732
His boss Bill Gates MSFT sold US secrets out to China via tech support, funded countless Leftist rebels and CoVax nonsense.
Church, where all children are welcome
https://nitter.net/pic/media/G0zmuMIXIAA_Avg.jpg
Everett interpretation does not depend on observers at all, so multiple observers is not a problem.
Think about it. It is in the name “many worlds”. Each world of the many worlds is what one observer perceives. One observer per world. Well, suppose two observers, each of them observing the other.
Physics in an answer to the question “how does what we do relate to what we see”. But the Bohr and Everett interpretations can only answer the question “how does what I do relate to what I see”
Everett is no problem if you leave conscious beings out of it altogether. If you want to fit your consciousness into it, it gets tricky. If you want to fit two consciousnesses into it, well.
That’s not what “many worlds” means. I am not sure how Everett originally formulated it, but as now understood it’s completely independent of observers. Each world may contain any number of observers, including zero (in the event that the universe in question has zero observers, such as (presumably) our own universe before life evolved). If you are talking to someone you are (for the moment) in the same world, though of course it’s constantly splitting (so, e.g. if you have some past text from someone, you have continuity with the world that that text is from, but there have been subsequent splits, so there are many copies of you (and them) in many different worlds that share that continuity).
Whatever it means, if it leaves out consciousness interacting with things, not useful.
If it means that the wave function is real, but consciousness is unreal, that is backwards. The world is real, consciousness is real. The uncollapsed wave function is … difficult. “Many worlds” if it means anything, it means for each possible outcome of a measurement, there is a shard of your consciousness that sees that outcome, and other shards that see different outcomes, each seeing a different part of the one real thing, the wave function. Are there no two consciousnesses seeing the same reality, the same world of many worlds? If so then you wind up trapped in subjectivist solipsism, which is not a viable framework.
Let us suppose no splits. We are doing the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment. Now you have a problem.
You have a 180 nanometer photon, you split it into two 360 nanometer photons, both of which have same polarisation as the original. One photon goes to one end of the world where it is measured by Bob, the other to the opposite end, where it is measured by Dave. Dave can choose to measure whether to measure one thing, or another thing, and likewise Bob, and when the original photon was split, it did not know what was going to be measured, and likewise Bob and Dave do not know what the other is going to measure. The problem brings free will, consciousness, causation, and the relation between mind and external reality all together. If you leave out any one of these elements, the problem goes away. And all solutions involve leaving out one element or the other, or positing something rather strange about that element.
The uncollapsed wave function is indeed difficult, but it’s what is (according to many worlds) the objective reality. (Many worlds = no collapse).
Yes, though that seems a subjective way of viewing it. The different outcomes all happen, you’re just along for the ride.
Simplification: Each world has all consciousnesses that exist in (that version of) the universe in it.
More complex version: Each split happens locally and is spread by entanglement with the stuff already split. So, in practice everyone is split locally by something that hasn’t reached other people yet. However, in the long run everyone who survives has a copy in each split relative to every splitting event. So, everyone can compare notes and note that they are in the same world relative to all those past splits that have reached all of them. (and you can’t compare notes without making that entanglement occur to spread the split). So, in practice viewing it as splitting the entire universe at once is not that wrong in terms of implications, just wrong technically. Also, in principle you could imagine that the splitting could stop for a moment, then people nearby could be in the same world relative to all the splits, instead of each one being split by events that occurred closer to them before it reaches the other. (maybe could make that happen by having two uploads implemented in a single deterministic, isolated system?).
Wrong: An essential aspect of the paradox is your choice as to what to measure. If you are just passively along for the ride, then no problem.
An essential part of quantum mechanics is that you cannot observe without action, without in fact changing the world. Passive observation is macroscopically a good approximation, but it is only an approximation. No one is along for the ride. And then we have two actors, in different places, at slightly different times, each acting to change the world that they share. And all the proposed solutions sweep the sharing under the rug.
Without consciousness, perception, awareness, and free will, there is no paradox.
Further, regarding EPR, the different EPR outcomes cause a split at each end, and are forced to be consistent when the splits meet, e.g. when they “compare notes”.
And now you have causation from free will going backwards in time, which is either unreasonably strange, or entirely incoherent.
Michael Heiser, a theologian who died in 2024, theorized that demons are the disembodied spirits of dead nephilim. In addition, there are adversarial spirits, the rebellious benai elohim. these two camps of spirits want to corrupt human beings. I think that is what we are dealing with right now in the spiritual realm and how these spirit-beings affect our politicians and elites.