Someone here

What makes something "objective " is an interesting question. My definition is that It has to be 100% accurate description of the phenomenon at hand .unfiltered by humans biases and emotional state. For example..the electron weighs such and such..this fact can be considered objective if its actually a true proposition about the electron's mass .unfiltered or colored by the human observer's biases who took the measurements.

1).Stop wanking it for 6 months . 2).If you can't stop wanking it ..at least use a gentle grip and slow pace. And reduce the frequency of your masturbation to a minimum as much as possible. 3).Massage it with olive oil. Thank me later .

@Loba if you become infinitely conscious you will realize that death is something you are imagining. Death is at best a belief. There Is no actuality to it whatsoever. That's why you have no direct experience or memories of being born also .because birth and death are illusions at the highest levels of consciousness. Though that's another topic for another day .

In another thread I was having a conversation with @Vibroverse about infinity and the concept of logical impossibilities. I understand (theoretically at least) that reality is infinite. Not just that the universe stretches out infinitely in all directions or that time has no beginning or end . But infinte in all possible ways imaginable or unimaginable.....But does that include that infinity contains logical impossibilities? A logically impossible thing is a thing that cannot exist by definition because its definition contains a contradiction. squares that are also circles, married bachelors, non-existence existing, sitting and standing at the same time, these are all hypothetical impossibilities. What makes something a hypothetical impossibility? That it cannot exist. That it cannot be true of Existence. It cannot be true of Existence that there is a man sitting and standing at the same time. Or that there is a round square. Or that non-existence exists. Or that Existence does not exist. Or that Existence is finite. Or is that also included in absolute infinity?

I dig that...like Buddhism's goal is to completely uncondition your mind. This would remove all limitations from our minds. If you think infinite possibility can't be true or attained, I guess you would think it useless. I don't believe in universal right or wrong, there are many perspectives to one truth and everyone has their own methods or path. Religions are internally diverse, people within the same sects may have different interpretations. So its gonna take a mix of both emptying the mind and using the mind to arrive at answers .After all..without the mind(thoughts basically) you can't even formulate a question or have an answer to it .

No.

Lol. I guess they can overlap but I wouldn't equate them to one another. I think an idea is objective when it doesn’t matter who’s talking. When it expresses a reality without modifying it. And an idea is subjective when it belongs to us, when it is shaped by our way of thinking, our values or even our mood. Much of the world is chaos due to people who think that their subjective views do reflect an objective reality, and they want other people to think likewise. If you’re sad, you’ll see a half-empty glass. If you’re happy, you’ll see a half-full glass. I will tell you the glass contains 50% of both sides . BTW. You ignored my post to you in the dating section when I asked you to have a conversation with each other outside the forum ..so I take this here as another chance and ask you again : can I contact you outside the forum (using WhatsApp or discord or Skype or whatever you like).

And what's wrong with "getting lost in mental processes and reach conclusions"? why are you even labeling it in a negative fashion (getting lost ). I don't dig this buddhist demonisation of thinking. Without thinking you can't survive. I disagree with Buddhism that to obtain enlightenment we should shut down our minds and remain silent both from the outside and the inside . Just sitting there silently meditating isn't gonna answer big existential questions , like where did I come from and what happens when I die. At best it is a system for coping with suffering but the cost is high you have to give up meaningful attachments. There is nothing wrong with silencing the mind temporarily to give it enough lube to work again more effectively .just like how you rest your body in sleep to recharge. But don't go fooling yourself that by silencing the mind you gonna get to the highest degrees of God realization. Its actually the opposite. Because reality has a structure and intelligence behind it which requires your intellect to be sharp. Not some zen no mind BS.

Would you mind explaining it ?

@Vibroverse Ah yess, now I can be lazy and not study for university and claim that the most nerdy badass students are those who don't study at all. And just cheat in the exams and get high grades for doing absolutely fucking nothing .very good bro ?.

@Vibroverse cut down the marijuana bro and come back to reality . Jk ?

I’m assuming here that “logically impossible” in your words means something that has a valid and sound argument proving its impossibility. And the answer is, well, it depends. Technically the answer is no, something that is logically impossible cannot exist. However, we are all human and we don’t know everything. This means you cannot be 100% sure that your premises in your argument are sound in reality. If new evidence arises that all of a sudden throws a premise into question, then your argument is no longer sufficient to prove the thing’s impossibility.

Logic is a structured way to derive conclusions from premises. The premises have to be correct to garuntee that the conclusion will be correct. My main point In this thread is whether logic restrictes reality as a whole .but I think I got my answers. If reality is infinite then it isn't restricted to logic .because it is what created logic in the first place .

What do you mean by that?

What do you mean? Assertion in and of itself has nothing to do with whether the asserted thing is logically possible/makes sense or not . Asserting the impossible is not impossible. It would be just empty talk .like I can say it's possible to flap my arms and fly to the moon breaking the law of gravity,and the moon is actually made of frensh cheese as they pictured it in Tom and Jerry . So I can make that assertion. But it just doesn't correspond to the facts of the matter in the external world. I think you are confusing the two here.

Yea you have to deconstruct everything if you want to awaken. Even notions of "love " and "nothingness "..all of that has to be throwed in the trash can .until all you are left with is the raw qualia of the present moment. Sights. Sounds .smells. tastes. Touch. Thought. Mental images .that's all that reality is .anything else is complete horseshit .and I know I will be criticized for saying so .but it is what it is .I'm being honest as per my awakening.

@Vibroverse what are you smoking?

You should be very careful about such statements. Because I just made that assertion .I just did .so it can be asserted but it can't be actualized. I think impossible things, can become very easly possible but under different conditions. So when in physics or mathematics we say that something is impossible, a very very strict conditions should be defined, otherwise, we can't be sure. A very nice example to this is when someone would tell you that 10+5=3, you may say that impossible, but this is because you limited your thinking to base ten arithmetics. However, if you will consider those numbers as 12-based clock numbers, then 3pm result is totally correct. You see, changing the base of numbering from 10 to 12 made it totally possible. Another good example is that two parallel lines never meets, this were an axiom in euclidean geometry for many hundreds of years, many mathematicians where totally sure that it is indeed impossible for them to meet. However, later on, mathematicians realized that they were partially wrong, since we need to specify about which space we are talking about: in flat space, like on a table's surface, that is really true, but on sphere like earth surface, it is wrong, since almost any two parallel lines gonna intersect eventually in poles. Same situation in physics and real world, actually it is even trickier there.. Newton laws for many hundred of years seemed to be true, but then we understood that they true in special conditions, like when objects move in slow speeds, otherwise we need to use special relativity. Those are examples that show that impossible things might only be impossible given certain conditions like for instance our mind's capacity to comprehend. So we cannot comprehend using our human logical faculties that a square circle exists..but that's not necessarily mean its impossible for infinite consciousness to create if it truly is infinite. That's the point I'm trying to make over and over again and I agree with @amanen about it .but you seem to overlook it.

I don't understand your question.

Guys ..there has to be logically impossible things that cannot exist physically. Yet how to reconcile that with reality being infinite? Ones type of “logically impossible” proposition is one that contradicts itself explicitly. I’d say that such propositions are categorically impossible, and I’d be interested in any counterargument. Whereas “physically impossible” could refer to “violating the current best understanding of the ‘laws of physics’” or to an empirical observation that it never happens.

So correct me if I'm wrong..we are already witnessing logical impossibilities in high states of consciousness (like you take some salvia or acid and you turn into a fucking coffee table for 100 years) but consciousness is flexible enough to contain within itself what we consider logical impossibilities? Which aren't impossibilities because only our finite logic can't include or make sense of them.but infinite consciousness can. Since it's all powerful. Logic has nothing to do with what is possible/impossible. It has to do whether arguments are valid/invalid. So we can remove the word ‘logically’ from the question. Can something impossible exist physically? Obviously not I'm asking whether a state of affairs that actually occurs could make a self-contradictory proposition true, then the answer is no, because what makes a self-contradictory proposition self-contradictory..and hence meaningless..is that it has two opposing truth conditions. If I say “This dress is white all over and not white all over at the same time,” I’m not actually asserting anything, since there is no state of affairs which could correspond with that assertion. I’m merely mouthing words. I might as well be saying “Ooofno gooba rachicha.” do you agree ?

You are not awake .sorry. You are not awake until you deconstruct even love and nothing. Until you are left with just the present moment uncontextualized by anything.

You are correct .existence is more fundamental than logic. You can't have logic without existence. But you can have existence without logic .and that's exactly what I'm talking about. "Existence without logic ".which means something illogical can exist. Because I think the key insight here is that infinity is prior to logic. Nothing governs infinity from outside .both in a literal and figurative sense. So reality ends up being absolutely infinite. And what we consider to be "logically impossible "is only so from our limited narrow perspective .which isn't all encompassing.

So reality ,being infinite and unlimited, usese logic as a subset of itself to create pseudo impossibilities? So It produces those limitations but it itself is not bound by its creation (the logical rules )? I think a typical analysis of this problem is that logical impossibility is simply non-sense, and thus cannot be made “real” in physical terms in the first place. Example: If I say “The snow is frozen and the snow is not frozen” I haven’t put forward anything profound. I have just spoken jibberish. The proposition “A and notA” is logically impossible and cannot be made sense of. The omnipotence paradox, such as “Could God create a rock to heavy for God to lift.” is often analyzed as a logical impossibility. God cannot fulfill logical impossibilities not because God is not powerful enough, but because logical impossibilities aren’t stating any sort of state of affairs. They’re just jibberish. This is not to say that the omnipotence paradox must be analyzed this way, but it is a traditional way given the issue of logical v. physical impossibility.

For me, unlike physical and metaphysical impossibilities, logical impossibility relies on human beings’ incapability to conceive and its negation together. If you consider inconceivability as impossibility, then you have an answer. But if you take impossibility apart from the human ability to conceive, question remains as a considerably stronger one.