Leo Gura

Then they should love my book.

Of course that is not what I mean when I say logic. My notion of logic is not about mechanical rule-following but the logic of how your mind flows and comprehends things. My notion of logic is rich, qualitative, and subjective, not just a machine crunching numbers.

Well, every atom is pulling on every other atoms in the universe so of course all causality is grossly simplified down. However, the simplification does work. You understand that if you step on a dog that you caused it pain, not some random atom on the other side of the universe.

Okay, but you are using logic in your proofs and thinking. If you think about some topology, you have to think about it logically. Logic is the structure of Reality in a sense. It is not limited to human logic, but much of math is covered by basic human logic.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

@Joseph Maynor What is wrong in an MP3?

I am not suggesting any hard duality there. It is simply that math is 100% a mental game and physical science is the opposite, at least that's how most scientists treat it. Math allows for proof and science does not. But even in math, you can't just say you had some insight, you need to write up some formal proof that others will agree with. If you have some brilliant insight like Ramanujan that you cannot prove, no one is going to take you seriously. By making proofs you are playing that academic science game. You are inventing stuff that can building a consensus, just as scientists do. I don't know if there are paradigm shattering ideas in math. I guess Cantor's infinities was one of those. But I feel like in math this is much more rare than in science. It is just harder to be closedminded about math as a mathematician than a scientist is closedminded about spiritual matters or ontology. Math is basically logic and science has many logical aspects to it because the physical world is largely logical. Don't forget that there is much math that doesn't apply to the physical world. But some of it does. Humans are sorta cherrypicking the math that is useful to them and ignoring the rest. That is a fair point and I will take it into consideration. My book is not going to be as combative or harsh as some of my blog posts. The blog posts are more informal. The book will be more suited for converting skeptics without alienating anyone.

Pre-ordering games! OMG! Such pointless mindlessness.

Looks like reviews agree this film is bad. Seems unoriginal and paint by numbers. Note: I have not seen it. But after the reviews, I don't wanna.

If you step on a dog and the dog yelps, you are not making that up, dogs really don't like being stepped on. You can use your intelligence to comprehend why stepping on a dog causes a yelp.

Mystical stuff is career suicide in places like Harvard. Some may do it, but they do so mostly in the shadows. Math is a special case where how you get it done doesn't matter as long as the proof gets delivered. This can sorta work in math but it cannot work in informal fields like science where stuff is way more messy, murky, and no proofs per se exist. I am not going after math, I am going after science because they are the ones who invented the "but this is unscientific" defense. "Trust me bro, I know what real science". With regards to your point about my tone and style, I understand that point and I am experimenting with what tone best to take. Basically, the ideas I'm presenting are so fucking radical that science will not accept them. So my tone reflects that. In math you have proofs. In my science what I am saying cannot be formally proven. So what I'm facing is quite different from your math situation. The notion that if I'm just more polite and nice that science will embrace these ideas is just not how it works. Science will fight these ideas to the death. And yes, science is long overdue for some shaming because they are shameless. Is it ideal to shame scientists? No. But it is deserved given their overall behavior. I am not just writing dry academic arguments, I am sending the world a passionate wake up call. For better or worse. If I am going to demonized and slandered anyway, I may as well not pull any punches.

There is of course much overlap between book and videos. The book is a formalization of my work and all the videos, aimed at a complete explanation of Reality. There will be new arguments, but also many old ones. The book is for people who have never found my channel. It also goes into very heavy epistemology and ontology. Price of book? No idea yet. It depends on whether I strike a deal with a publisher. If I go with publisher the book will be cheaper so it can sell more. If no publisher than more expensive because few copies will be sold. It is a serious book so I expect a more serious price of $30-40. A publisher will make it more like $20. It will probably be two volumes sold separately. I have also entertained making it extra pricey to weed out the unserious people. This is supposed to be a life-changing book so the price is really irrelevant. If I charge $1000 for it, it would still be worth every dollar. But it won't be anything that pricey.

@Ero I don't doubt what you are saying. But what you are saying is not acceptable in today's science/academic system. My point is simply that science needs to be more open to that kind of method.

The book writing is a bit more formal, not as casual. But not too formal or fancy. Similar to blog but better. It definitely feels like me. It has the Leo vibes. It is not as dry as say, Ralston's books. It will feel like I wrote it, not some generic AI.

This is like a chicken getting into the oven for the wolves. Haha

I don't know. It's impossible to count. I have been writing for myself and on the blog for a long time. But as far as pure book-writing experience, well, not much since I haven't written any books before. So it depends on what you want to count things. I don't really care about writing as a craft. I care about insights and ideas. Writing is just a way to deliver insights. I write in a direct and clear style without a bunch of fanciness. The challenge of the book is not in the writing, it's in the logical organization of all the insights. That was the real work, not the typing of the words. The words are not what matter. What matters is the order in which they deliver the insights so that everything makes holistic sense. On this front I reached mastery long ago thanks to making my videos. I am not trying to master the writing, I am trying to master the layout of the insights.

Hipsters who still buy vinyl records.

It is very readable. Of course that time does not include all the editing I will do later. But I write in such a clear style that you can read the rough draft and it all makes perfect sense. Can it be polished up more? Of course! That will involve a lot more time. Also, I don't write fluff. If it was written, it is important for the whole. I only make important points. If I was allowed to write fluff it would need to a million words long. 1000 pages is 1000 very dense, very condensed pages of content with zero fluff and even stuff left unsaid due to lack of space. Even in 1000 pages I won't be able to say everything I want to say. It's just not enough space for so much insight. You cannot turn all my videos into 1000 pages. It would not fit.

Certainly. That's easy. I got you guys for that. I'll send out drafts to a few folks on the forum who are trustworthy. I can also use local AI to proof-read it and even ask for improvements. I plan on doing that only once it's done.

Mike Tyson, casting pearls

That's a narrow way of looking at it. Religion was a great innovation in its day. It wasn't just a parasite, it offered unique things that didn't exist previous and had a variety of beneficial impacts on humanity. Of course, it causes harm too. Today it is largely outdated, but again, only for those of us in highly developed parts of the world. Most people in the world today are still not developed enough to outgrow religion. If people were developed enough to outgrow it, religion would barely exist.

@Jirh I wouldn't call them placeholders, they are natural stages of development.

I do speak for a living. That's why I'm wary of it.

Exactly.

You are acting like it is arbitrary, but it's not arbitrary. Laws are spiritual because humans are spiritual. You can have secular laws, but humans are spiritual and demand spiritual things. If you give them secular laws they will not be satisfied and ask for your head on a platter because you ignored their spiritual needs.