Someone here

I get the first paragraph. Not sure I follow the second one .sometimes you remind me of Nahm with your cryptic style Well..scientists observe carefully and repeatedly..Then they study what they have observed and form theories using what they deduce from their observations. They determine what the theory predicts will happen under specific conditions. Then they design and run experiments to test those prediction. Then other scientists run those same experiments to verify that the results are the same for everyone. If everything works out and matches up they and there is no other theories around that explain the same thing just as well they start calling it an accepted theory. That’s as close as they ever get to “knowing” something because tomorrow a new discovery may be made that their theory should predict and doesn’t If that happens, they adjust the theory to take the new discovery in to account and go back to the testing phase. Sometimes the new discovery makes so much difference it can’t be worked in to the existing theory. Then they go back to the raw data and start over from there to create a whole new, entirely different theory. So it's a self-correcting system. Science is the most objective method to arrive at conclusion about the nature of universe,biology, chemistry, physics, or really anything. I know I'm sounding like a stage orange materialist but it Is what it is . I believe science has more both truthfulness and practicality than mysticism or spirituality. But that's just me . No .that's one point .but there are many others . To arrive at an accurate knowledge about the world. Here is where epistemology kicks in. How do we know ANYTHING? In my opinion via direct experience and direct experimentation. You might ask what's the point of that either ? And here there is really no answer. You can have sex with your pragmatism all you want but being practical and pragmatic about everything isn't gonna produce the desired results in your life .maybe because you have your priorities backwards. You think that practicality is more important than Truth .while I think the opposite is the case .

Yes . If I quit university I will probably work some wage slave labour boring job and physically taxing . So university got me by the balls .at the same time ..I don't want to attend university because of the amount of social acrobatic games that I have to play in order to fit in and not come off as a weirdo. I'm a weirdo. This is a firm belief of mine that I can't challenge

I can't. Im a University student. I have to do my obligations and show up on time .I have to socialize with my professors and other students who are from different cultures than mine .and lemme tell you I suck ass in socializing . My lofty dream is to just for everyone to fuck off and leave me alone in my solipsistic bubble ?.

Well..you take it so simplistically. You can tell who is awake or who is not by their words . Notice There that OP is parroting Leo (I imagined my body..I'm love). I'm not denying his experiences because it is his experience after all..so who am I to judge? But you have to understand that true awakening means deconstructing EVERYTHING. Even these notions of solipsism and love and bla bla. So if he said there is only the ever present now uncontextualized by any metaphysical stories (like I'm imagining my body ,it's stil a story)...then he would be truly awake .

Yes its obvious what I'm talking about .yet notice how we overlook the obvious. All I said is that there is nothing to reality but the present moment. But do you actually fathom the significance of this statement? Don't you believe that yesterday existed and tomorrow will exist ? Its one thing to say that time is an illusion and its another thing to actually live from such understanding in your day to day life.

And why do we associate sleep with nothingnes? You still didn't solve the problem. If you say we see black during sleep you are wrong ..because we dont see anything (talking about deep dreamless sleep ). And why associate the sleep state with the void and not the waking state unless there is some truth to the proposition that during sleep we lose consciousness..and unconsciousness' color is black

And how exactly to do it mister Einstein? We spent the whole last week talking about it and I still have no clue ?.

I think this question is requiring a bit of definition of three terms: science, objective, and subjective. I will define science as the process of scientific investigation. Most of the physical sciences such as physics and chemistry follow the scientific process, which requires experimental measurements and independent replication of the experiments. Mathematics does not follow the scientific process although it might be considered the language of the scientific process. Most of the so-called social sciences do not follow the scientific process and should be called arts rather than science. Independent replication is rare in these subjects because it is difficult and results so often are not replicated. By objective, I mean experimental measurements (results) that do not change (are invariant) regardless of the persons/experimenters conducting the experiment. By subjective, I mean results that vary depending on the the experimenters and/or their pre-existing opinions. Based on these definitions, science is human-objective. I add the human prefix because we only know reality as humans; we cannot conceive of reality beyond the scope of our humanity and its senses. Note that being objective in this sense does not necessarily mean that science will always produce “true” results; only that the results are repeatable. Some people believe that the modern physics of relativity and quantum mechanics added subjectivity into physics because the experiment conducted influences the results of the experiment. For instance, the measured length of some object can vary based on the movement of the observer/subject. However, the same result will obtained by other observer/subject with the same movement conditions with respect to the object. Quantum mechanics has similar issues with respect to the wave or particulate nature of measurements. However, these results are also replicable consistently. quantum mechanics and relativity are considered our best descriptions of nature but they are incompatible at a deep level. Maybe and non-human can understand how they both can be “true.”

It's obviously more than that . Science is the best tool that we have so far for understanding the world around us, or the entire universe. It is a process by which we observe, create hypotheses, test hypotheses, reject failed results, refine hypotheses or create new ones, and continue so. The objectivity of science as lies in its insistence that hypotheses pass tests in the real world before they are accepted as useful or truthful. A succesful experiment to test a hypothesis must be repeatable, even by different scientists on different days and in different places or cultures, in order to be accepted. As such, it is the only known process by which we can obtain objective knowledge of our world. If you can think of any other "objective "method to arrive at certain conclusions about the world then please provide. And before you say it ..I know what you gonna say .you will probably suggest new age spirituality techniques such as meditation, psychedelics, yoga ,Mantras etc...but what you have to understand is that these fall into the category of science. I sense we need a good definition of what science is before we proceed In this conversation. Otherwise we will mix stuff up unnecessarily.

Of course via the act of observation which is a subjective experience. Are you hinting at the measurement problem In quantum physics? You can't measure the state of a system without disturbing the system. More accurately, whenever you measure a system, you are merging with it, to create a hybrid system. You can't disentangle the observer from the observed. It's all tangled up in itself. I think this is a point for the argument that science can't escape the subjective domain.

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.