Proof is Impossible

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I am genuinely trying to help you Awaken, and you bite the hand that feeds you. Why? It isn't wise. Use me to help yourself rather than arguing with me. Winning arguments will not help you.

This is not about winning arguments, its about holding you  to the level of epistemic standards that you put yourself in.

My claim that you quoted and immediately dismissed without thinking about it , is just  that awakening is not a logical necessity, hence there is at least one possible world where h. Possible world semantics is just a rigorous and powerful frame that you can use to think about all the different ways how the world is and could have been . A possible world is a set of true and false statements where the set doesnt contain a contradiciton.

So for instance: its a logically possible world , where this forum doesnt exist; its a logically possible world where Earth doesnt exist ; its a logically possible world where there isn't any life in the Universe; Its logically possible that everyone has a 10km long penis ; its a logically possible world where Christianity is true ; its a logically possible world, where every fact up until this moment is the exact same but in the next second 10 trillion dollars is manifested on your table randomly out of thin air etcetc.

In other words, if you cant spell out or derive a contradiciton from a particular claim (that you take to be true), then that means that that particular claim is true in at least  one possible world and if you ask yourself the question "which world am I in", then often times you face the underdetermination issue - which is the fact, that from all  possible configurations (where that paritcular claim is true) you dont know which possible world you are actually in.

So - If that particular claim (that you think is true) is true in a 1000 logically possible worlds, then how do you know which particular configuration you are actually in? You appealing to the claim being true doesnt help you at all with teasing apart which one you are in, because it is true in all of those worlds. 

 

Now apply this to awakening  and reconstruct the Universe and all your truth tracking and 'realness' senses, and all the sense data and all the qualia that you experienced through your awakening and ask yourself "why couldn't I go through the exact same thing , while having the exact same level of conviciton in a possible world where metaphysics is at least slightly different"?

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew

[zurew]

And the fact is that in the vast majority of cases (when we take a particular claim to be true) -  there arent just a 1000 possible compatible worlds - there are much more than trillions of possible worlds that it is compatible with.

Often the number of possible worlds a claim is compatible with cant even be cognized, because the number it too big.

[Breakingthewall]

28 minutes ago, zurew said:

for instance: its a logically possible world , where this forum doesnt exist; its a logically possible world where Earth doesnt exist ; its a logically possible world where there isn't any life in the Universe; Its logically possible that everyone has a 10km long penis ; its a logically possible world where Christianity is true ; its a logically possible world, where every fact up until this moment is the exact same but in the next second 10 trillion dollars is manifested on your table randomly out of thin air etcetc.

Everything is interconnected; nothing can be separate. Any separation would be an absolute limit, and if you realize what reality is, you'll see that's not a possibility. Therefore, anything that happens, down to the smallest quantum vibration, has to fit perfectly with the whole. So, all those worlds you propose must be aligned without deviation to the infinite power with the totality unlimited reality.

Only the perfection exist, because the slightest imperfection or deviation would assume that what appears is not supported by the entire flow of reality, therefore it simply would not exist.

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Dodo]

@zurew @Breakingthewall wait, we are believing in a world "out there" independent of consciousness? We sneaking in materialism through the back door?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, VioleGrace said:

How could it be im racking my mind and i can't imagine "HOW ?" lol 

Could you explain a bit so i can grasp the concept ? 

It's quite simple: you don't know what can and cannot be known.

Very intelligent and rational people commonly make this simple mistake of assuming that, "Well, reality is so tricky and difficult to know that nothing can be known for sure, so we must be humble because we can't be absolutely certain of anything at all." But this is in fact unknown and not true. You do not know if anything can be known for certain absolutely. Therefore you must keep your mind open to the possibility that something can be known absolutely. And that turns out to be the case.

You can know absolutely that you are God. How? Well, by becoming God.

Since you don't know, you cannot dismiss the possibility that it's actually possible for you to become God. Not as an idea, not as belief, not as concept, not as a mere experience, not as an intellectual conclusion -- but ACTUALLY!

God is, absolutely, the only thing that exists. And its existence is Absolute. This can be known with 100% certainty. This is the heart of Awakening.

Becoming God destroys skepticism because skepticism is a lesser intelligence than God. Skepticism is a conceptual position while God is Absolute and non-conceptual.

The mistake almost every skeptic makes is that he overlooks the possibility that there exists a higher intelligence than skepticism.

Can anything be known absolutely? This is an empirical question, not a theoretical one. You must actually go out and find the Absolute. You cannot assume that the Absolute doesn't exist.

It is a bad dogma of science that nothing Absolute exists. This is false. God is Absolute. Which is why science cannot find God.

Right now you exist. This is absolutely true and can be known for certain by you. But everyone takes this for granted as trivial. It is anything but trivial.

Today, so-called skeptics actually misunderstand original Greek Skepticism. The original Skeptics did not doubt the truth of phenomenal experience. To a Greek Skeptic, if you see the color red, is it true that you see the color red. That cannot be doubted. What the Skeptics doubted was all the conceptual baggage added to that phenomenal truth. But if you are seeing red, it is absolutely true that you are seeing red. Even if red is a hallucination, it is still true that you are seeing red.

"But Leo, what if I'm actually not seeing red!" << that is self-deception

Do not overlook the simple possibility that you can turn extreme skepticism into dogma and self-deception. It is possible to doubt things which in truth are just true and not doubtable. But your mind is powerful enough to doubt even truth. For example, your mind can trick you into believing you don't exist. This would be false but it would seem to you like you're being "rational", "careful", and "scientific". But in fact you are just misusing your mind. Being too epistemically cautious and paranoid is a form of self-deception. Rational people mistakenly assume that the more careful and paranoid they are the more truthful their view of reality will be. But this is false. Over-caution ends in self-deception because the mind becomes too closed.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

34 minutes ago, Dodo said:

wait, we are believing in a world "out there" independent of consciousness? We sneaking in materialism through the back door?

Nope, none of that has to do with what Im saying. 

The framework doesnt pressupose/reliant on any specific metaphysics.

You interpret the term "world" as something physical, but again thats not what it means there. The term 'world' just means a set of true/false statements where there isn't any contradiction.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew

[- Adam -]

55 minutes ago, cetus said:

From the book: 'Know Yourself'.

When the secret is revealed to you, you will know that you are not other than God, but that you yourself are the object of your quest.

This gave me chills, It's so beautiful  
Reminds us of the infinite beauty of God's design.

Thank you for that.

[cetus]

@- Adam - My pleasure. Keep it in your heart space where it belongs.

[zurew]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Do not overlook the simple possibility that you can turn extreme skepticism into dogma and self-deception. It is possible to doubt things which in truth are just true and not doubtable. But your mind is powerful enough to doubt even truth. For example, your mind can trick you into believing you don't exist. This would be false but it would seem to you like you're being "rational", "careful", and "scientific". But in fact you are just misusing your mind. Being too epistemically cautious and paranoid is a form of self-deception. Rational people mistakenly assume that the more careful and paranoid they are the more truthful their view of reality will be. But this is false. Over-caution ends in self-deception because the mind becomes too closed.

See that I agree with, and I agree that we should care about rationality as an epistemic norm, but rationality and reasonableness is a much more narrower set than logical possibility.

I would have 0 issue with you saying something like "you are being irrational/unreasonable when you deny the validity  of and or possibility of awakening", I have issue with you implying that awakening being false is logically impossible/it is a logical necessity that awakening is true.

[Dodo]

45 minutes ago, zurew said:

Nope, none of that has to do with what Im saying. 

The framework doesnt pressupose/reliant on any specific metaphysics.

You interpret the term "world" as something physical, but again thats not what it means there. The term 'world' just means a set of true/false statements where there isn't any contradiction.

 

Maybe I just dont get it, but to me the whole thing seems like overthinking. Why think at all about things like that? To me its more interesting to view everyday experiences as awareness itself... to slowly deepen my realisation of being. To notice awareness while normal everyday life unfolds. 

There is only one world for me - This Moment, before we give it any form, this moment before any story. All those different worlds you talk about, it seems to me its just a mind storm... 

Edited 3 hours ago by Dodo

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Maybe I just dont get it, but to me the whole thing seems like overthinking. Why think at all about things like that? To me its more interesting to view everyday experiences as awareness itself... to slowly deepen my realisation of being. To notice awareness while normal everyday life unfolds. 

There is only one world for me - This Moment, before we give it any form, this moment before any story. All those different worlds you talk about, it seems to me its just a mind storm... 

I agree that we dont need to think this way, thats why I said from the beggining to OP that "you dont need this level of certainty".

The only reason why I brought this up because Leo appealed to this level of certainty and now Im holding him to it.

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew

[Dodo]

16 hours ago, SQAAD said:

Let's say that you pretend being a hard nosed scientist. You want "proof" for everything. 

Then as you sit to eat your dinner, you accept as facts all sorts of feelings, thoughts and images in your head.

That you really did went to university and didn't just fabricate that. That you really just returned from work and not just invented that.

You hold that as a true and valid memory and not as a false one.

Where is your evidence for that? There is none and it can't ever be one.

You might go and check and see your diploma that you got from University. You say "here is the proof".

Then 10 minutes you go to the bathroom to take a sh!t. And you ask yourself how you really know you went to University. You reply "i remember it".

So you hold your memory as true. 

When Leo is sharing insights in his videos he believes he really did read those books and really did have those experiences that he talks about .

If i ask you to check if an alien is sitting under your bed. You check and see no alien there.

Then 10 minutes later you ask yourself "how do i know that there is no alien under the bed?"

How do you know that your memories are true?

Again you have to rely on your memories as true and not mere fabrications.

There is no escaping this. Either you question forever and lose your mind completely or you accept your memories, feelings and thoughts as valid.

1. Even the most “rational” or “scientific” person ultimately relies on memory and subjective experience.

2. When we claim to “know” something — like having gone to university — our only evidence is that we remember it.

3. But memory itself is not independently verifiable — it’s an internal experience.

4. Therefore, our most fundamental “knowledge” rests on faith in the reliability of consciousness and memory.

5. If we try to demand proof for everything (including our memories), we end up in an infinite regress — questioning everything until sanity breaks down.

🧩 The core insight:

There is no ultimate, external proof for our direct experiences and memories.

At the deepest level, all knowledge depends on subjective trust — trust in perception, trust in memory, trust in reasoning.

🧭 The philosophical conclusion

From this, we can conclude:

1. Absolute certainty is impossible.

Everything we “know” depends on assumptions that can’t be proven without circularity.

2. Practical certainty is necessary.

To live and act, we accept memories and perceptions as “true enough.”

3. Science and reason are tools, not ultimate truths.

They operate within the framework of trusting our minds and memories.

4. All perspectives — even the scientific one — rest on faith at some foundational level.

When Leo makes a video and talks about one of his God Realizations this is as true and as valid as a normie scientist trusting in his memories that he really did return from work 20 minutes ago. *Lol*

 

Ok the thing your chatgpt is saying is based on belief in materialism. Its normal because thats what the usual audience's belief is. It talks about scientific truths in time and space, ask it if anything can be trully known outside of consciousness and whether direct experience is made out of consciousness or matter.

It's absolutely certain that the direct experience you are having is not constructed out of matter and that it appears to you now. I mean feed this into your chatgpt its much better. 

 

Excellent — here’s a **fusion rewrite** that blends:

 

* 🧠 *Squaaad’s logical precision* (epistemology, structure, clarity)

* 🌌 *Dodo’s metaphysical depth* (consciousness-first, direct experience)

 

I’ll preserve the tone of philosophical reflection but elevate it into something that feels both rigorous and alive.

 

---

 

## 🪞 **Fusion Version: “The Mirror of Knowing”**

 

Let’s begin with a simple question:

How do you *know* that what you remember is true?

 

You say, “I went to university,” and you hold that as fact.

But when you check, all your “proofs” — your diploma, your photos, your friends — are *also* things you perceive and remember.

 

Every verification leads back to the same source: **conscious experience**.

 

You never step outside of it.

Even the scientist who demands proof relies on memory, perception, and the feeling of certainty that his instruments are working.

All knowledge, even the most empirical, begins and ends *within consciousness*.

 

🧩 **The Epistemic Realization:**

 

> The foundation of all knowing is not matter, but awareness itself.

> We do not *perceive* through consciousness — perception *is* consciousness taking form.

 

The question then shifts:

Instead of asking “How can I prove my memories are true?”

we ask, “What is this field in which memory and proof appear?”

 

You never find memory *outside* of experience.

You never find perception *outside* of awareness.

Even doubt itself appears *within* consciousness — never beyond it.

 

So at the deepest level:

 

* The scientist’s “facts”

* The mystic’s “visions”

* The ordinary person’s “memories”

 

—all arise within the same luminous field of Being.

 

Their contents differ, but their **substance is identical**: awareness itself.

 

🧭 **The Philosophical Synthesis**

 

1. **Absolute certainty about things** is impossible.

   All “things” appear within awareness and depend on it.

 

2. **Absolute certainty of consciousness** is immediate.

   You cannot doubt that experience is happening — only *what* it contains.

 

3. **Science and mysticism** both rely on trust — not blind faith, but faith in the intelligibility of consciousness itself.

 

4. **Matter and mind** are not opposites, but two descriptions of the same event — the dance of knowing within itself.

 

So yes, the rationalist is right: nothing can be known with perfect proof.

And the mystic is also right: the only undeniable reality is the consciousness in which all proof appears.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Dodo

[VioleGrace]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

you don't know what can and cannot be known

Thank you it is a lot more clear now, 

So absolute certainty is possible only for awaken people if i get it right

And when you realise that you are god do you still don't know what can and cannot be known ?

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, VioleGrace said:

So absolute certainty is possible only for awaken people if i get it right

Certainty in what?

Even Awake people are not certain if it will rain tomorrow. But they are certain that they are God.

Quote

And when you realise that you are god do you still don't know what can and cannot be known ?

You realize you are God but you still don't know exactly what God is. You don't know God in detail.

God is so vast and advanced that it does not fully know itself. But at least it can be sure that is is God. As for the details of what means, that require discovery and you could mistakes in that discovery process.

It's like you know the moon exists, but is there gold on the moon? You don't know that detail. But you can be sure there is a moon. So it is with God.

Edited 3 minutes ago by Leo Gura