A mitzvah to listen to the voice of the sages

I didn't understand what was not understood? If this is a sermon, there is a refutation, and if it is an opinion, there is a better counter-opinion.

A better explanation is not enough. To disagree with the Sanhedrin requires certainty. I don't see how you can reach a state of certainty regarding this.

I have the same level of certainty that I have in demanding certainty to argue about the Sanhedrin.

If I may give substance to your words, both the principle that there is no obligation and the requirement for certainty. Thank you.

You yourself wrote why not to listen to the voice of the sages, since their power is no greater than that of the Sanhedrin. The assumption is that if the Sanhedrin is wrong, there is no obligation to listen to it (this is an issue of being wrong in the mitzvah of listening to the words of the sages, especially in the case of parents).
The requirement for certainty is based on simple reasoning. If everyone who disagrees with the Sanhedrin does not have to listen to them, then their authority is empty of content. Just as a soldier's right and duty to disobey an order exists only in a situation of a "clearly illegal order," that is, when it is absolutely clear that the order is illegal, and not every time he thinks it is illegal.

So why is it that everyone who is wise and knowledgeable is considered to be dependent on his own opinion, and that every person in the world of Torah has reached a definite conclusion against the Sanhedrin? If in your opinion this person is required to obey the Sanhedrin as an authority [and not as a mere clarification of halakhic law], the sin is not placed on his shoulders.

He who is wise and reasonable and has reached a clear conclusion is dependent on his own opinion. What is not clear here?
And see there a law that kicks in a teaching. And all this in someone who is wise and reasonable, which everyone must decide whether he is in this. And it is also necessary to discuss whether authorization and permission to discuss are not required here, which does not exist in the Idna.

You are afraid of dividing the Sanhedrin, and the Torah is afraid only of the teacher who gives his opinion against the Sanhedrin. And maybe you are also afraid of this and do not teach against the sages?