Leo Gura

I won't speak on his metaphsyics as I don't want my heart broken, but he's very intelligent from that AI doomer debate. I like him. But he has a strong gym-rat bias.

I have read and answered over 100,000 comments over the last 10 years. I certainly must dismiss some as unworthy as otherwise devils would exploit this loophope to distract me from teaching about Godly matters. I am wise to these sorts of tricks and distractions. But I agree with your larger point that I must remain open to feedback and criticism. It's because I read and answer thousands of anonymous comments that I must have filters.

No doubt. You nailed that.

Maybe check before spreading ugly gossip about people.

Don't kid yourselves, this problem goes far beyond silly Christians. There are scientists who believe ghosts are impossible. How can you do science on a ghost if your metaphysics says it can't exist?

Imagine a scientist who had a metaphsyics that Satan was real and that splitting atoms might release Satan into the Earth. There are people in our government right now who believe UFOs and aliens are demons sent by Satan. How can you do science on aliens if you believe they are Satanic?

Again, you keep setting the goal too low. If you set such narrow, finite goals, then you may not need any special fancy philosophy from me to reach it. But can't you see that SCIENCE -- the ENTIRE field of SCIENCE -- cannot be circumscribed by any collection of your finite practical goals, whether it's flying to the moon or unifying GR with QM. These are all just tiny aspects of SCIENCE. My concern is with the whole of SCIENCE, not any finite result, technology, TOE, or model. You are behaving like a chemist who locked himself inside his department at MIT and says, "Does your philosophy help me understand hydrogen molecules? No? Then why should I care? It's useless." Yes, it's useless when your ambitions and view is so selfish and finite. But ALL OF SCIENCE is my concern. Not your chemistry or whatever. Whether my insights help advance your pet science project is just not relevant. If all you care about is what's relevant to you, that's an extremely limited notion of science. Don't you see that the scope of my concern is infinite? Don't you see why it must be infinite?

A proper TOE is actually Omniscience. You are concerned with silly goals like flying man to the moon. I am concerned with guiding mankind to Omniscience. That's why my decisions and manner don't make sense to you. My mind has a much greater responsibility than yours. Which is why I'm paid the big bucks (I wish)

You should know by now that nothing I say is trivial. If I am talking about it, and I say scientists don't understand it, then it is highly non-trivial.

The goal is total understanding of reality. Not anything less.

Well, I do spent time showing the world problems with materialism, Marxism, Nazism, Zionism, rationalism, atheism. But I consider this different from debunking.

There is not one superfluous thing in existence. Science operates under the false idea that some parts of reality are irrelevant. This is a fundamental error which comes from wrong metaphysics.

I fully admit that I refuse to answer points that I find unworthy of my attention. Whether you understand or agree with my refusal to address certain points is beside the point. I answer stuff that I deem of value answering. Obviously this is a subjective decision. What may appear an evasion to you may just be me prioritizing my time. I am actually very diligent in answering serious questions. I am very rarely asked serious questions. Mostly I am asked low quality stuff which I have little desire to answer. I especially do not enagage with people who try to debunk my work. If I see that you are trying to debunk my work then I just see that as a waste of your and my time. I do not engage in debunking nor debate. This does not mean you cannot be skeptical of my ideas. Be as skeptical as you like, but don't expect me to waste my time assuaging your concerns. That is a you activity, not a me activity.

It must be true because Omniscience is true. The only way to predict and manipulate the entire Universe is to be God. That's what God is. God requires complete awareness of every truth in existence. This awareness grants Omnipotence. You are failing to grasp that science actually seeks God, which is Omniscience, Omnipotence, Truth. Without realizing God science can never reach it's ultimate goal. This is why my metaphysics is so powerful and fundamental. My metaphysics is the only thing capable of explaining all of reality and the entire function of science. Science seeks Omnipotence without understanding that it's doing so. And science does not understand that Omnipotence requires Omniscience, which requires Truth. If you miss even on ounce of Truth you cannot have Omniscience and Omnipotence. I know these things because I realized God. Science has not. Anyone who hasn't realized God will not know these things. I understand every epistemic and ontolgical error of science and how much this holds back science. Science does not know this. That is the difference.

You are mistaken. All truth is relevant because in the end science must predict the whole universe, which is impossible to do without knowing everything true. If it is true that an ant on a planet on the other side of the galaxy farted 5 billion years ago, this truth must be relevant to science.

An irrelevant point since in the vast majority of cases no two facts about the universe are relevant to each other or any scientist. But they are still scientific facts. Science is advanced by making very specific correlations between very specific truths and data. You cannot ever know which piece of data (which truth) will be relevant to your next breakthrough discovery. Just because you can't foresee the relevance of a truth does not mean it is irrelevant. That's just a lack of vision. It will change science as long as the view is true. If the view is false then it won't. Although even false views can advance science. If atheism is false (and it is) this must affect science. It's only a question of time. If God exists (and it does) this must affect science. It's only a question of time. Anything true affects science, since anything true is real, and science is the study of reality.

Looks like serious, solid work. Great!

Any true claim, of any kind whatsoever, is relevant and necessary to the advancement of science. Otherwise there would exist aspects of the universe which are real but science cannot account for, explain, predict, or manipulate. You can say my metaphysics is false. But if anything in my metaphysics is true, it must is relevant for science.

Understanding of consciousness and paranormal phenomena. Understanding of psychedelics. Understanding of mental illness. Understanding of alien minds, communication with aliens. Understanding of spirituality, mysticism, religion. Fundamental physics. Psychology and sociology.

Yes, it limits science. This does not mean all science stops. You can keep doing limited science for a long time into the future. If I tell you that the speed of your car engine is artificially limited, this does not mean you can't drive it. Again, this is a failure of basic logic. Physics was limited by Newtonian mechanics prior to Einstein. This does not mean physics didn't make new discoveries and developments between Newton and Einstein. Paradigm shifts are necessary for science to advance, but much science can still be done within old paradigms. Just because scientific discoveries are still happening is not proof that a new paradigm isn't needed. A new paradigm unlocks new domains of science without stopping research in the old domains.

I never said such a silly thing. You invented this strawman.

Contemplate this, and you will have the answer you seek: Why is it fundamentally important to thoroughly understand the limitations of the current methodology of science?

You should direct that silly bit of logic at Einstein, Newton, and any other scientist or philosopher you revere.

"Look, Leo, I discovered a new rock on Mars! So why do I need you? What good are you? Look at this new rock! I can be a Satan worshiper and still discover new rocks!"

And Newton didn't know about Einstein and science still advanced before Einstein. Your logic is so bad that it doesn't warrant a serious response. The reason I don't bother to respond to your points, point by point, is because you're not even in the same ballpark of what I'm trying to teach. You make very shallow and uninteresting rebuttals which, if I took seriously, I would have become a typical clueless academic. Do you comprehend that to reach the level of understanding that I reached I had to be ruthless with dismissing all of these typical materialists, scientistic talking-points? To me what you're doing is not serious. It does not lead to profound levels of understanding of reality. It is not my position that enlightenment will necessarily make better practical scientists. Maybe it makes for worse scientists because you stop even caring about science. Makes no difference to me. The things I teach are so profound that to measure them with the yardstick of practicality is an insult to intelligence. Whether something is practical or not is irrelevant to me. Which is not to say that there are no practical implications here for science. There certainly are. But they are subtle, not as cartoonish as landing a man on the moon. This whole argument is like saying 300 years ago: "But what are the practical implications of Non-Euclidean geometry? It's all just abstract metaphysical junk and we don't need it to sail a ship around the world." Just look at the logic of it. It's so myopic. ANYTHING TRUE HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE! Whether you are intelligent enough to see the implications or not is irrelevant. Whether it helps you jerk off on the moon is irrelevant. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. "But Leo, you said science is limited. But I can still get my dick sucked on Mars so why does it matter?" This is the level of logic here.