Prof Hoffman, Case Against Reality - Playing Basketball In Zero-Gravity

I had a comment this morning that I think gives me a lead-in excuse to jump over to this thread. :slight_smile:

John said...

Can you perhaps just post a less verbose article please.

NO offense please.

Let’s be simple straight to the point.

Set out the 3 point argument and dismantle them 1 by 1.

I hope you take this as constructive.


Cc: You misunderstand, this has been my homework assignment book that I'm sharing, it documents my progression through the entire book, which is way too verbose and redundant in itself, so I've given myself permission to be redundant, no other way to keep up with Donald Hoffman. I think if you give this last installment another scan, you'll see what my actual point is.

That said, your advice is well taken, and more articles will be showing up. In good time.

Now I’m back in the digesting phase of my process. Rereading what I’ve written and selecting those key points you’re requesting.




Hello again John,

I spent the morning doing catch up on chores and it occurred to me I shouldn’t play coy, since, you were nice enough to take the time to ask. Okay than, off the top of my head:

  1. Categorizing this book as “Science” rather than “Intellectual Entertainment.”

  2. Hoffman’s flippant dismissal of scientific realism and Physicalism is worth making a big deal about. His deluded dismissal of “spacetime” - I would label an intentional con.

  3. Hoffman’s confusion between the perceived and the perceiver. Suggesting that the reality of an object is dependent on the way it is perceived, it is ridiculous. Ignoring the fundamental reality that light needs to reflect off an object before we can perceive it, indicates intentional con.

  4. Implying that human understanding of quantum weirdness down at Planck scales matters to the reality of the macroscopic spacetime matrix we are embedded within. Again I would categorize that as an intentional con.

  5. Implying that his FBT theorem and ITP theory, which are created within an artificial binary idealized universe, relates to our physical reality. It does not, it’s a head game, nothing more. His sterile one dimensional understanding of some idealized digital evolution completely disregards Earth’s “wet” evolution and what that has to teach us.

  6. His apparent cluelessness about the difference between Objective Reality and Physical Reality. Namely, “objective” is a quality of the human mind in action, not a quality of nature unfolding, which is simply Physical Reality.

  7. Taking consciousness as a foundation of our universe, seems more like prank than serious conjecture. Consciousness is a spectrum of emergent abilities, an inevitable result of biological complexity. Acquiring consciousness requires a physical entity capable of interacting with its environment. Hoffman’s “Conscious Agents” are impossible to observe or study - that is not science!

  8. Hoffman is not doing serious science - he’s doing philosophy, his math may be rigorous but it’s disconnected from physical touch stones and firmly stranded within the landscape of his mind.

I was going to put down three points, but it doesn’t work that way, one thing leads to another.

“dismantle them 1 by 1.” John, care to clarify?


If you’re curious:

Prof Hoffman Playing Basketball In Zero-Gravity.

In Defense of Scientific Realism and Down to Earth Physical Reality.

Chapter 10a, Community: The Network of Conscious Agents (1/3)

Chapter 10b, Community: The Network of Conscious Agents (2/3)

Chapter 10c, Community: Network of Hoffmanian Conscious Agents (3/3)

The Prelude, Prof Donald Hoffman Playing Basketball In Zero-Gravity

Chapter 1, Mystery: The Scalpel That Split Consciousness

Chapter 2, Beauty: Siren of the Gene

Chapter 3, Reality: Capers of the Unseen Sun

Chapter 4, Sensory: Fitness beats Truth

Chapter 5, Illusory: The Bluff of the Desktop

Chapter 6, Gravity: Spacetime is Doomed

Chapter 7, Virtuality: Inflating a Holoworld

Chapter 8, Polychromy: Mutations of an Interface

Chapter 9, Scrutiny: You Get What You Need, in Both Life and Business

Appendix, Precisely: The Right to Be (Foolish)

Since this is theoretically an inquisitive discussion forum, I don’t mind continuing to toss in updates on my project now and then. I closed out 2020 with the following.

Happy New Year. :wink:


As 2020 draws to an end the one-hand-clapping finds himself embroiled in a curious effort to defend established “scientific realism.” Because? Well, because apparently someone needs too.

Curious, because the process has inspired me to think in terms of composing a Students Guide In Defense of Reality - Dissecting Hoffman’s Case Against Reality. I want to create a framework for a virtual class to examine the process of scientific deception, and science by rhetoric rather than facts, while pressing home the importance of learning about Evolution from the bottom up. I’m at chapter 19 with many more in the pipeline before wrapping it up (still at the laying groundwork phase - chapters listed at the bottom).

This mission is about exposing how folks like Donald Hoffman, Templeton Foundation, and many intellectual celebrities are wasting our precious time looking through the wrong end of both telescope and microscope, for fun and profit.

For instance, Hoffman’s “Conscious Agents” and FBT Theorem are simply the latest rationalization in human’s long tradition of denying responsibility for ourselves, lives and actions. Now that God has lost its substance, it’s time for math and pseudo-science?

What’s wrong with appreciating ourselves for the incredible biological creatures that we are? Why not explicitly recognize the divide between physical reality and our Mindscape with something more substantial than flailing at a supposed body-mind "problem.”

This project is forcing me to realize that the younger generations need to escape the shackles of generations old self-indulgent manmade philosophical constructs who’s stilted questions and inscrutable solutions have more to do with human insecurity, egos and turf battles, than in understanding our actual human condition and the biosphere that created and sustains us self-obsessed human beings.

Our answers are limited by the quality of our questions!

Genuine understanding about our natural world is an emergent property driven by the inflow of honest quality facts and evidence. All else is dancing within our minds. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Just stop being blind to the supremacy of physical reality!

Finding answers?

I advocate for the simple act of doing your homework and seriously learning about “Wet” Evolution, the dance of geology and biology through Deep Time. Take the time to digest and absorb the lessons modern science has to offer and I guarantee you a cascade of new insights. Insights your mind achieved for itself. Sure beats endlessly repeating new versions of ancient dog-chasing-tail arguments.

Learning is hard scrabble, at times it’s humiliating and it hurts, but that’s life, suck it up, and move forward. Process ALL the information at hand and allow the evidence to drive your understanding, knowing full well that additional information will help refine whatever it is you know today.

It demands curiosity, honesty, self skepticism, along with a self-starter attitude toward acquiring and processing information, whether attending university or for personal avocation. Including arguments and evidence that disputes what we’ve learned to believe, because those are our real learning opportunities.

Show fidelity to honesty and the process, its experiences, and the satisfaction of solid understanding will outshine the facade of ego - which in turn, allows us a more sober secure appreciation of our selves and our place in the universe, at this moment.

Learning used to be a big deal to the citizens of this country. I thought everyone loved learning. Now at 65, and especially after these past five years, I’ve had to admit it’s getting to be down right rare. So, of course, I’m hoping this resonates with some.

It would be nice to network with a few likeminded who share a passion for understanding our Earth, her biosphere, her ways and means, and thereby achieving a better down to Earth understanding of ourselves.


Best Wishes for the New Year,




Further background information:

Paul Mealing considers Hoffman’s "Objects of Consciousness.”

The Case For Reality: Because Apparently Someone Needs to Make One

Sabine Hossenfelder in Defense of Scientific Realism and Physical Reality

“Emergence” - A Handy Student Summary and Resources

Student Resource - Frontiers in Psychology - profits ĂĽber alles? A closer look.

More to come . . .

I just made an addition,

Incidentally, if you wanted to discuss it further, visit the folks at: