The Best Conversation I Ever Had In Facebook Messenger

On September 11, 2018, a guy randomly asked me a question based on something I posted on facebook. The conversation challenged me and sometimes I still quote parts of the conversation while talking to people til this very day. Today, I was thinking about part of the conversation and I thought to myself to look up the convo again just to see what we were talking about. The person’s account has disappeared, but the conversation is still available to me. I hope he is somewhere doing great things.

Him: Hi Udochi, on wealth does not make you valuable and knowledge does not make you wise. Why do you think it’s a fact that wealth does not make one valuable? When we use the word value, it only has meaning in the context of another agent or under certain circumstances. Can you clarify a little please?

Me: Value in this context is moreso to say “universally valuable”. As in “valuable to every situation and everybody.” You are correct that “value has meaining in the context of another agent.” My bias is to view the ultimate agent as the God of the Bible. God does not find value in anybody’s money. However even outside of that context, value can not be universally defined.

I guess what I’m saying is that “wealth is not a guarantee that in that situation within which you may desire to demonstrate your worth, you will be seen as worth the value which is required for the outcome which is desired by the person who is responsible for valuation.”

Him: Okay, true. Money is after all a proxy for value. And it is also true that not everything has a price tag.

e.g a brand new life or immortality

Me: exactly

you said it better than me

Him: Interesting how you used the bible as a source of truth. Why so?

How you used it as a means to illustrate a point

Me: I think everybody needs a foundation of truth that the build the house of their understanding upon

The Bible is my reference point for most things

It is my compass to know when I am using sound judgment

We all have such things

I merely acknowledge that for me, that thing is the Bible

Him: Okay, agreed and I totally understand but let me act the part of a kid and still be inquisitive.

Me: feel free

Him: When you say every one needs a foundation of truth to build understanding on, why not just build it on truth itself. Many things in life is a representation of a single eternal truth. e.g mass, time, physical quantities , God, even language. In essence, we use approximations of reality. But every now and again we look at the model to be sure it actually models reality correctly

So knowing that the Bible was written a long time ago, have you followed the breadcrumbs down to the last source to be sure every representation is done correctly?

Me: The answer to your second question is (as close as I possibly can I am).

I have read the enitre Bible from cover to cover and I am constantly questioning teachings of others based on it

The foundation of my understanding is the belief that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. And from that I test other things

Him: Ah…but reading and questioning can t surely be enough don’t you think ?

Me: If other things that exist naturally in nature (behavior of poeple, the color of the sky, the smell of food) conflict with what the Bible says, I ask further questions

So far, the Bible has passed those tests for me

Him: Okay makes sense

Me: No, reading and questioning are not enough, walking in light of what one reads and seeing if it pans out helps (testing)

Him: But if bible is the foundation for you then it brings up another question. Is it a complete foundation?

Me: There are many misconceptions about the Bible and if one is not careful, one becomes a victim of “misrepresentation bias”.

Him: You know Newtons laws works well for classical mechanics and using it for everyday life you might think it’s a true representation of reality.

Me: To your earlier question of “why not just build on truth itself: mass, time, physical quanitites, language”. To that I say, everything you mentioned changes. It says so in the Bible and it is validated by science. Also, I can’t build the foundation of my relationships on the idea that my loved ones have millions of cells in them. Of what consequence is that fact? Time is an illusion, and language is fluid. None of these physical phenomena ultimately answer the critical questions of my day to day reality. The Bible does and more.

Him: True point.

What do you means when you say it changes?

Me: How do you perceive Newton’s laws as being representational of reality in a practical way? Give example

Him: With Newtons laws, I can with 100% certainty tell you when a billard ball I will hit with a certain force will stop moving even if I perform the action 5uears later. I can also predict planetary motion to a high degree of accuracy. and all basic machine interaction stuff

But I’m saying it works good in practice but still does not explain a lot hence there is more to reality than meets the eyes

Me: As we know, the theories of relativity challenge Newtonian Physics with ideas like the nature of gravity and time

Him: yeah relativity … bt more quantum mechanics and quantum gravity which is relatively new

But then quantum mechanics has been really successful and is a better representation of reality

So better but still an approximation.

Me: And quantum mechanics tells us that nothing is fixed in the way we understand it to be. On a quantum level the rules change. Therefore, Physics in and of itself is a terrible representation of practical truths that guide morality and social issues.

Him: Yeah when it comes to morality and social issues, It involes humans and it a whole new ball game for me. 📷

Actually what you said about quantum mechanics derives from the copenhangen interpretation which is the dominant explanation even though not everyone agrees. But the case is work is constantly being done to illuminate reality as much as possible no matter how long

Me: If one is to base the foundation of their understanding on a core truth. That truth must be a truth that claims to always be true under all circumstances. The God of the Bible says He is the beginning and the end. The God of the Bible makes claims about being omnipresent. The God of the Bible makes claims of existing before time. Building on a foundation as real as this, and then exploring from that stand point results in a different structure than building on something that has no real permanence.

Good or bad

For me, I come from the stand point of God is the truth, and everything else is fading, broken or dead.

From there, I can look further and see what does that thing claim about itself. Then, you can see what is broken about it. Then, you can try to repair what is broken. If reparation is impossible, you go back to what is solid no matter what.

Him: Is the God a “He”?

Me: This exercise can be repeated as many times as one encounters a fallible system

The “He” of God is for the sake of our understanding as human beings.

What do you mean by “illuminate reality?”

Him: Agreed, but say you want to go an additional step , how would you convey to me the actual reality of God

Illuminate reality… is the process to get the very essence a concept… not an approximation but the thing tself

Him: The way I would seek to convey to you the actual reality of God is the same way I would seek to convey to you the actual reality of a sandwich

First, I will do my best to express to you what I mean when I say “sandwich”

Then, I will give you a sandwich and tell you to experience it for yourself

Him: I would even eat it

Me: The only way I can define God is by sharing with you what God said about Himself

Him: and get more experience etc

Me: For me, that means telling you to read the Bible (all of it)

The oness is on you to first take the definition as “true” meaning “OK, this definition is the definition of ‘sandwich.’

Then, take a bite, and make a judgement “OK, this thing she gave me is in fact what she said a sandwich is.”

Him: And I can even ask more and you tell me how to make bread

and I keep digging till I see that the sandwich is just basic stuffs transformed to become sandwich

But but I’m afraid of I read the Bible , I would see a tranformed version being described

Me: I don’t need to tell you how to make God for you to understand what God says He is. The difference between God and a sandwich is that the sandwich did not define itself for you. It was me who told you what a sandwich is. You don’t have to believe me.

Him: I’ve not read it in a long while

But the Bible did not write itself

Me: If I told you what an Igbo person is, and you believed me because I am Igbo. Then, you met another Igbo person, and that person did not match what I told you. You would mark one of us as a liar, or come to some other conclusion about Igbo-ness.

Him: You might as well write the description of sandwich in a book

right?

Me: Explain “if I read the Bible, I would see a transformed version being described?”

There are cookbooks, but my claim is that God wrote the Bible through men.

Sounds like you are afraid that you will be convinced of a lie.

That your mind will be changed, and your understanding will not be based on reality.

Him: Not really afraid. I want proper verification

Exactly. I need the archives in the Vatican released, the sources of the bible released.

Me: And you would read all the archives of the Vatican the way you read the entire Bible?

Him: Yes but at least I would have read something bigger because the Bible bible is a subset of its sources and what was exempted right?

Me: Do you have a PhD in theoretical physics?

Him: nooo.. .I wish I can see someone to pay for my bills then I can do that. Now I can’t school because I have to work day and night

Me: OK. I have the same problem

But the reason you desire to go out of your way like that is, because you believe the abbreviated definiton that was given to you

Him: Yes

Not that I believe

Me: Maybe the source of the information was someone you admired

But for what ever reason, the interest is there, and you want to devote four or more years of your life to learning more

Him: I neither believe or refute because either would be wrong . I don’t have data to back up anything .

nor

Me: Ultimately, these are decisions we make. Your decision to like physics and live your life the way you do, whatever way that is was made by you

Him: Yes

Me: Your decision to work the job you work that can not afford for you to pay for a university degree in physics is your own

Reading the Bible is free. Learning theoretical physics is cheap

You don’t need a university degree

Him: But I can’t get access to a mass collider

Me: You can’t get access to a mass collider because of decisions you have made

Him: True but what about other decisions beyond my control?

Me: What do you mean with that question?

Him: So in general , people say let go of the illusion of control to mean that there is a part of life we control and their are things we can’t control I.e the unknown unknowns

Me: true…

Him: For instance , would you tell a disabled man that he can’t participate in the Olympics because of his decisions?

Or say a girl in Somalia that she can’t get an education because of her decisions etc

Me: Yes to #2

To #1 I would need more information. Like why the disabled man wants to go to the Olympics

There are Olympics for people with disability

This is a beautiful question you are asking

My answer is Biblical

Each man has his portion

It is not unjust that a man should have no legs, or a woman should be born in a repressive and poverty stricken land

But it is to that man or woman what he/she does with what he/she is given

Belief otherwise presupposes one of two things. Either: 1. We are all entitled to all of the exact same things/we are all entitled to every possibility this universe can manifest or 2. We are devalued by what we have or do not have

With a foundation of truth that is based on the Bible, I believe that our value is based on what God says it is, and our entitlements are exactly what God gives us

It is then our responsiblity to make of what we have been given, but we do not all need to make of it the same things

A man with a penny should not be expected to produce in equivalence to a man who possesses millions of dollars

That standard is unfair

Nobody should compare the man with a penny to the millionaire, not even the man with a penny!

Him: Ah, so a personal yardstick for each person.

Me: Materially, yes. Morally, no.

And if the man with the penny decides for whatever reason to pursue the million. That is his choice, and he should live according to that decision.

I am not the moral judge. However, all should accept the consequences of his/her actions

Him: Okay, a lot has been said. I will go through the chat again. Nice talk.

Actually I only started liking physics a few months ago. Mostly been into comp.sci. Saving up for my degree in georgia tech

Me: Awesome! Good luck with that.