Leo Gura

Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

4,808 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont think thats true. Some of it will be relevant, but not all of it.

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.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zurew said:

I said that (as a point to outline how silly it is to claim that one specific metaphysical stance is necessary), not you -  that was my original point that you responded to (where I outlined what issue I had with Leo)

But metaphysical assumptions must influence how one does science or anything.

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats right "regardless whether its true or false" - thats my point. It doesn't matter what kind of metaphysical beliefs you hold (at least in the vast majority of the cases), you still need to run those experiments and you still need to make those calculations etc.

But someone questioned their metaphysics before.

And later, people can take that as a belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

All truth is relevant because in the end science must predict the whole universe, which is impossible to do without knowing everything true.

You assert this ,but I dont think you have a supporting argument for it.

Especially when it comes to predicting things, we ignore a lot of info ( I can make predictions about how a body will move without knowing what color it has, or whether it is sentient or not or any other random thing). This is also why certain equations are so elegant. There is a fuck ton of info reduction happening there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, Nemra said:

But metaphysical assumptions must influence how one does science or anything.

Some of it is relevant, but the vast majority isn't.

We can run down thought experiements where two scientists run the same experiement that leads to a new discovery (even though they have a bunch of mutally exclusive metaphysical beliefs).

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

You assert this ,but I dont think you have a supporting argument for it.

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.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

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.

You've dismissed many of my non-materialist takes as well, especially ones that were more critical of you.
I agree that this dude basically has no idea of what he's talking about, but the idea that you often evade points and criticisms when it comes to metaphysics is not entirely unfounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It must be true because Omniscience is true.

The only way to predict and manipulate the entire Universe is to be God.

That is compatible with not all facts being relevant to the manipulation of the Universe.

 

4 minutes ago, gengar said:

I agree that this dude basically has no idea of what he's talking about

Right, will wait on you pointing out the wrong things I said, and if you cant I will take it that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Just like you had no arguments to establish Solipsism in the other thread and made a bunch of points that were compatible with non-solipsism as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, gengar said:

but the idea that you often evade points and criticisms when it comes to metaphysics is not entirely unfounded.

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.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, zurew said:

Some of it is relevant, but the vast majority isn't.

We can run down thought experiments where two scientists run the same experiment that leads to a new discovery (even though they have a bunch of mutually exclusive metaphysical beliefs).

That's possible.

However, other scientists with different metaphysical assumptions may view that new discovery as an error.

Furthermore, what are the reasons for conducting those experiments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sort of complete, universal, scientific wiki could be useful as a reference but the vast majority of it would need to be excluded from nearly every endeavor except for riding high on the beauty of knowledge itself.

The best designs have clearly defined, purposeful constraints that intentionally exclude all that is superfluous. This is why science can make progress without knowing the whole. Different endeavors require different knowledge sets. Farting ants may be fundamental to worm hole travel but not submarine design. In other words, metaphysics MIGHT be instrumental to next-level science, but so far, a lot has been accomplished without it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zurew I'd take leo serious. Right now after 5-6 years of work I'm starting to understand things about reality and when I watch his 5-7 years old episodes I realise that he understood it and was talking about it years ago. He's been doing understanding and getting conscious of things for years day after day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Furthermore, what are the reasons for conducting those experiments?

Im not sure what you are trying to ask there.

"What is the reason to run the experiment that leads to a discovery" or do you try to ask "What is the reason to run thought experiements ?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura I've never understood people who try to debunk the work of others! I think that if you don't agree with someones work, just don't follow it and ignore it! If you wanna buy a house and you don't like it, just ignore it and go find a house that you like! You don't spend time and energy trying to show to the whole world how bad that house is! 


https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leo Gura said:

Science operates under the false idea that some parts of reality are irrelevant.

They are irrelevant with respect to specific goals.

Want to check how far you can throw a ball? The variable "Are you a Christian" wont be there and wont hold any weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

You don't spend time and energy trying to show to the whole world how bad that house is! 

Well, I do spent time showing the world problems with materialism, Marxism, Nazism, Zionism, rationalism, atheism.

But I consider this different from debunking.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zurew said:

They are irrelevant with respect to specific goals.

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


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Im not sure what you are trying to ask there.

"What is the reason to run the experiment that leads to a discovery" or do you try to ask "What is the reason to run thought experiments ?"

What were the reasons that those scientists that have different metaphysical assumptions wanted to conduct that experiment?

That also has to be taken into account.

Edited by Nemra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leo Gura said:

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

But there you are just making a trivial claim, a claim that is true by definition.

"If you want to know all facts, including all metaphysical facts, then you need to know all metaphysical facts".

But this is different from pragmatic goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

I am very rarely asked serious questions.

quite belittling of us as an audience to act like we don't seek truth like you and dont ask serious questions often

many questions you evade because you deem them unserious or "dumb" are often times subtle realities that you haven't found out yet

You're not yet into the deepest levels of absolute logic yet for example, and it surprised me that it took you 100+ trips to realize that logic is absolute

I realized it after one realization of the oneness of reality

I explicated some points about it to you, but you always waved them off, even though you brought them up months later in your work, such as the question of "always returning" in neoplatonism, just an example

It just goes to show there's a lot you also don't understand and can learn from others, just like others probably have never gone through Alien stuff like you

Yet you never seem to be openminded on the topics of metaphysics, you think you've figured it out and nobody can say anything to you about it

The fact you spend hours on this forum each day where you're basically the leader is also a bit of a red flag

You're a very compassionate person and I respect you for it

But this idea that nobody is serious except you is an ego trip

It's no different than Muhammad Ali saying he's the greatest


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now