Leo Gura

Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

317 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, from chaos into self said:

I’m a materialist. I don’t buy into your view that consciousness is god. I argue that each person has their own consciousness, and we are separate from each other. This comes from the observation of others, including animals, and observing evidence of a conscious being. Yet I cannot become aware of their awareness, I can only become aware of my own experience. If you believe you can do such a thing, I say it is the mind generating hallucination, or belief in a meta-narrative that’s being projected onto reality.
 

Reality as it is cannot be experienced by me. I can only perceive it with my senses. I experience an interpretation of reality. And it’s safe to assume reality is out there, independent of the narratives I project onto it.

 

 My criticisms of science are mostly that it doesn’t make intuitive sense. I’m rather basic in that way. I don’t care to learn all about physics because it’s theory and conjecture. We can’t know reality, we can only interpret a biased experience.

I try not to let metaphysical assumptions cloud my behavior. Science and spirituality are both metaphysical assumptions. I try to live life as awareness alone. It’ll take me years to awaken to that. I’m pretty unconscious (autopilot). I do allow myself to hold beliefs, I find you need to assume eating is right on some basic level in order to eat. Assumptions about the universe are necessary in that way.

But I don’t have the patience nor interest in physics to learn it. So I marvel at what physics says but don’t believe it to be true. There is no need for me to believe in general relativity or quantum mechanics to function in my day to day life. As such, I view physics as playing with assumptions and belief. I’m not personally interested in such a game.

 

You are not a materialist you are stage 7 spiral dynamics 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sandimay said:

I studied a little physics/science and understood stoichiometry quite well.  I've done lab experiments that bear out the results of mathematical chemical equations.  So getting back to @kai0's question - why does it appear that reality is consistent - surely they have something right?  
 

I guess it's all relative depending on which perspective we are looking at it from - a human one; a somewhat elightened one; an aspirationally enlightened one or totally enlightened one (and all the infinite perspectives in between).

this question is usually dismissed by appealing to the first person experience (subjectivity) without acknowledging that the assumption is that the subjective experience (dream) is the ultimate truth but its not viewed as assumption its viewed as truth so its a dead end 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sandimay said:

I studied a little physics/science and understood stoichiometry quite well.  I've done lab experiments that bear out the results of mathematical chemical equations.

Are we talking high school level or postgraduate?


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since everything is limited, perhaps you should try talking about the cons of being hyper-rational and over-scientific instead of pointing out the limitations of science. Imo, that would make much more sense to people. Because yeah, you're telling us that science is limited, and a lot of your viewers will resonate and agree, but then what's the alternative? And what are the limitations of the alternatives? Because any alternative would have certain limitations too.

Edited by Gesundheit

If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kai0 said:

this question is usually dismissed by appealing to the first person experience (subjectivity) without acknowledging that the assumption is that the subjective experience (dream) is the ultimate truth but its not viewed as assumption its viewed as truth so its a dead end 

@kai0 Is it even a little bit non-subjective that the whole class of students got the same (apparently correct) answer?  I.e. the expected answer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

121967651_10157659039379080_7578342763513392486_n.jpg


If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself." — Neils Bohr


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A scientist is busy denying God by inventing the God particle. 

—Me. 

 


INTP loner....... Nothing else but to enjoy  the rest of my dream. Love it. 

Preety preety

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you are trying to debunk logic using logical arguments. How do you reconcile that?


"Reality is brutal and it does not care about being fair to you."

                                                                                            -- Leo Gura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Enlightenment said:

Sometimes you are trying to debunk logic using logical arguments. How do you reconcile that?

What is there to reconcile? All logic will inevitably contradict itself due to self-reference strange loops.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NoSelfSelf said:

@Leo Gura can you explain in more detail i dont understand how it will contradict itself?

Every finite symbolic dualistic system will necessarily have self-reference problems that cause contradiction.

Because reality is infinite and one, not two. Nonduality forces every dualistic system into contradiction because twoness cannot grasp oneness.

See my video about The Metaphysical Implications of Godel's Incompleteness Thereom.

All logic and science will forever be incomplete. This has been formally proven by Godel and Tarski.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is causation a law or just a tendency? I have been assuming it is more of a tendency and a choice thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can we trust anything that’s not empirical? How do we know it is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, finite is self-referential.

Is Infinite not self-referential? 

Infinity if it's Infinite must be self-referential by Infinite means, isn't it so? ( is it  because the null of all those self-references is zero it is perhaps a mere illusion? )

Twoness cannot grasp oneness, okay.

From where is this Duality coming from or the twoness? if it's coming out of oneness then it must grasp oneness, it should have the capability to grasp it or not? idk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ajai said:

So, finite is self-referential.

Is Infinite not self-referential?

That's not what I said.

Reality is a singular whole infinite Self. But logic is a limit finite part of that Self which pretends that it can grasp the whole. But a part cannot grasp the whole. A hand cannot grasp itself.

Quote

Infinity if it's Infinite must be self-referential by Infinite means, isn't it so?

Infinity doesn't need to reference itself because it is itself.

Infinity conquers the self-refernce problem by dropping reference, period. But logic cannot drop referencing because logic's very method is reference. Without reference logic isn't logic.

Quote

From where is this Duality coming from or the twoness?

It's coming from ego and dualistic mind.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is direct consciousness a (the only?) way of accessing truth that 99.9% of humanity and science is missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Travelion Science itself tells you that it has studied less than 1% to the universe.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually going to post about this anyway. Not really a question but something I came across yesterday that really put some things into perspective about science and scientists. Seems convenient this thread has been started so I’ll post it here. So I was nosing through my social media and I kept coming across the same article from different groups. They lead me to this nonsense about simulation theory. I was gobsmacked to read, although I was already fully aware of this foolish concept, still it gobsmacked me yet again to read of our supposed top scientists claiming that there is a 50/50 chance that we’re living in a computer simulation. I know Leo’s made an episode on this simulation thing before but my point is how honestly can supposed intelligent clever people, scientists even suggest this nonsense that we’re living in a computer. True intelligence is truly lacking here, they may be clever, academically or what have you, but intelligent definitely not. Now what struck me even more so were the comments underneath these posts from the general public, actually considering this to be a possibility. And even just outright believing it. Suggesting that oh yea actually this definitely could be going on. I read and I read on, alls I could think is this some kind of joke. That these scientists that people look to for truth, are feeding people this bullshit, but yet even more so your average human is taking it in, believing this shite. No wonder in general the human race hasn’t got a clue what’s going on. Nowhere in any social media comments or in the article itself did I see anything about God, awakening, enlightenment or anything along those lines. Which suggests to me in general people don’t even know about such a thing, and if they do they’ve just written it off as fantasy, and would rather deluded themselves with idiotic ideas such as living in a computer. I did read the word infinite, but was then followed by a computer with infinite power🤦🏻‍♂️. Seriously is this where we’re at as a race and within science. Joke ideas and joke gullible people lapping this shit up. It really disheartened me that this in 2020 is even a suggestion. People look up to scientists, yet many of them are leading people in the complete opposite direction to truth. Leo is right, in the fucking Stone Age. Anyway here’s a link to this fools article i was taken https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

Edited by Dazgwny

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