Someone here

Yea you have to deconstruct everything if you want to awaken. Even notions of "love " and "nothingness "..all of that has to be throwed in the trash can .until all you are left with is the raw qualia of the present moment. Sights. Sounds .smells. tastes. Touch. Thought. Mental images .that's all that reality is .anything else is complete horseshit .and I know I will be criticized for saying so .but it is what it is .I'm being honest as per my awakening.

@Vibroverse what are you smoking?

You should be very careful about such statements. Because I just made that assertion .I just did .so it can be asserted but it can't be actualized. I think impossible things, can become very easly possible but under different conditions. So when in physics or mathematics we say that something is impossible, a very very strict conditions should be defined, otherwise, we can't be sure. A very nice example to this is when someone would tell you that 10+5=3, you may say that impossible, but this is because you limited your thinking to base ten arithmetics. However, if you will consider those numbers as 12-based clock numbers, then 3pm result is totally correct. You see, changing the base of numbering from 10 to 12 made it totally possible. Another good example is that two parallel lines never meets, this were an axiom in euclidean geometry for many hundreds of years, many mathematicians where totally sure that it is indeed impossible for them to meet. However, later on, mathematicians realized that they were partially wrong, since we need to specify about which space we are talking about: in flat space, like on a table's surface, that is really true, but on sphere like earth surface, it is wrong, since almost any two parallel lines gonna intersect eventually in poles. Same situation in physics and real world, actually it is even trickier there.. Newton laws for many hundred of years seemed to be true, but then we understood that they true in special conditions, like when objects move in slow speeds, otherwise we need to use special relativity. Those are examples that show that impossible things might only be impossible given certain conditions like for instance our mind's capacity to comprehend. So we cannot comprehend using our human logical faculties that a square circle exists..but that's not necessarily mean its impossible for infinite consciousness to create if it truly is infinite. That's the point I'm trying to make over and over again and I agree with @amanen about it .but you seem to overlook it.

I don't understand your question.

Guys ..there has to be logically impossible things that cannot exist physically. Yet how to reconcile that with reality being infinite? Ones type of “logically impossible” proposition is one that contradicts itself explicitly. I’d say that such propositions are categorically impossible, and I’d be interested in any counterargument. Whereas “physically impossible” could refer to “violating the current best understanding of the ‘laws of physics’” or to an empirical observation that it never happens.

So correct me if I'm wrong..we are already witnessing logical impossibilities in high states of consciousness (like you take some salvia or acid and you turn into a fucking coffee table for 100 years) but consciousness is flexible enough to contain within itself what we consider logical impossibilities? Which aren't impossibilities because only our finite logic can't include or make sense of them.but infinite consciousness can. Since it's all powerful. Logic has nothing to do with what is possible/impossible. It has to do whether arguments are valid/invalid. So we can remove the word ‘logically’ from the question. Can something impossible exist physically? Obviously not I'm asking whether a state of affairs that actually occurs could make a self-contradictory proposition true, then the answer is no, because what makes a self-contradictory proposition self-contradictory..and hence meaningless..is that it has two opposing truth conditions. If I say “This dress is white all over and not white all over at the same time,” I’m not actually asserting anything, since there is no state of affairs which could correspond with that assertion. I’m merely mouthing words. I might as well be saying “Ooofno gooba rachicha.” do you agree ?

You are not awake .sorry. You are not awake until you deconstruct even love and nothing. Until you are left with just the present moment uncontextualized by anything.

You are correct .existence is more fundamental than logic. You can't have logic without existence. But you can have existence without logic .and that's exactly what I'm talking about. "Existence without logic ".which means something illogical can exist. Because I think the key insight here is that infinity is prior to logic. Nothing governs infinity from outside .both in a literal and figurative sense. So reality ends up being absolutely infinite. And what we consider to be "logically impossible "is only so from our limited narrow perspective .which isn't all encompassing.

So reality ,being infinite and unlimited, usese logic as a subset of itself to create pseudo impossibilities? So It produces those limitations but it itself is not bound by its creation (the logical rules )? I think a typical analysis of this problem is that logical impossibility is simply non-sense, and thus cannot be made “real” in physical terms in the first place. Example: If I say “The snow is frozen and the snow is not frozen” I haven’t put forward anything profound. I have just spoken jibberish. The proposition “A and notA” is logically impossible and cannot be made sense of. The omnipotence paradox, such as “Could God create a rock to heavy for God to lift.” is often analyzed as a logical impossibility. God cannot fulfill logical impossibilities not because God is not powerful enough, but because logical impossibilities aren’t stating any sort of state of affairs. They’re just jibberish. This is not to say that the omnipotence paradox must be analyzed this way, but it is a traditional way given the issue of logical v. physical impossibility.

For me, unlike physical and metaphysical impossibilities, logical impossibility relies on human beings’ incapability to conceive and its negation together. If you consider inconceivability as impossibility, then you have an answer. But if you take impossibility apart from the human ability to conceive, question remains as a considerably stronger one.

@Questioner what's the difference between your night time dreams and this waking experience that you are experiencing right now?

I know that fundamentally these kinds of inquiries are fruitless . Yet I don't consider them to be a waste of time. I'm a big believer in "mental pleasure ". Philosophising to me gives me a high state ? Existence is not a matter of hypothetical possibility. Existence is necessarily at least as real as you and me. We cannot deny this. So all attributes of Existence are necessarily at least as real as you and me. So an Omnipresent thing/being (Existence) is necessarily at least as real as you and me. To reject Existence as being Omnipresent, Infinite, and Perfect, leads to semantical inconsistencies as highlighted in the OP. Existence is necessarily at least as real as you and me. Unicorns are not necessarily at least as real as you and me. But given the infiniteness of Existence, unicorns can come to be at least as real as you and me. Again the reason why x is hypothetically impossible (semantically inconsistent) is because Existence does not accommodate it. If x is semantically consistent, then necessarily, Existence accommodates it. As for my direct experience..it's both infinte and finite at the same time . Its finite in the sense that I can't fly or perform miracles. But it's infinite in the sense that if I tried to catch the beginning and ending of my experience (whether in terms of space or in terms of time) I can't actually find a clear boundary.

I watched that video about strange loops .one of Leo's best videos . However, I'm curious to understand how do you link the concert of strange loops with what I call logical impossibilities? Because you only have two choices: You either believe Existence to be finite, or you believe it to be Infinite. There are no other possible beliefs about Existence. Existence being finite is clearly contradictory. It amounts to the contradiction of existence coming from non-existence, or non-existence having existed, or non-existence existing. A finite existence is contradictory, therefore Existence is infinite. Yet how can it be infinite If something like a square circle cannot exist in it ? You see there is a problem with both perspectives (whether existence is finite or infinite ).

I remember Leo saying in one of his posts in the forum a time ago "infinity is the impossible made possible ". I think it is contradictory for a finite existence to have an infinite amount of potential. So a finite existence will not account for why have access to an infinity of things. Though existence being absolutely infinite it must contain absolutely everything. The point that is tripping me up ..is whether infinity contains everything that's possible..or EVERYTHING. period (meaning even what we consider with our limited minds to be impossible or unimaginable).

I guess I get this . When we are judging something as logically impossible we are using our finite mind's capacity to imagine. And that definitely has limitations. We can't imagine anything we want .our imagination is actually limited by what we already have experienced in the real world. But to infinite consciousness itself prior to the creation of this particular universe including our limited imagination..to that there Is no constraints whatsoever. It can create a square that is also a circle. If we deny that then we are basically claiming that reality is finite .but that can't be .therefore logical impossibilities are paradoxially possible with absolute infinity.

So you are saying infinity does include what we call logical impossibilities because its our finite minds that's ascribing the notion of "impossibility " onto a concept or a phenomenon? Or that God has infinite attributes and none of those attributes is impossible for God. God defines what is possible and what is impossible. If God transcends His attributes then His attributes do not define Him. If God is defined by His attributes then it is finite. And since God is infinite, it doesn't depend on its attributes like logical possibilities? ⁷

Kant was wrong about noumena. There is no external objective world behind the scenes. All you have is the first order. The field of consciousness that you are experiencing right now .that's all that exists . I think you have to look at this in reverse, otherwise, it will result in an inconsistency in meaning/semantics. Here's why: 1) If x can happen, then x is hypothetically possible. If x can't happen, then x is hypothetically impossible. Agreed? 2) x can only happen if the potential exists for it to happen. If the potential does not exist for it to happen, then x is not hypothetically possible. It is hypothetically impossible. Agreed? 3) A finite existence cannot make all xs possible because a finite existence's potential, is finite. So, either we say: 3a) Not all possibilities are truly possible (which is as semantically inconsistent as saying not all triangles are truly triangles) 3b) All possibilities truly are possible (which is semantically consistent) Summary: There are no alternatives to 3a and 3b. 3a is contradictory. 3b semantically/logically requires Existence to be Infinite. Note that there is a difference between an unknown and a possibility which I believe is often grossly overlooked .I will attempt to highlight this: Whether or not there are unicorns in our galaxy is an unknown. Whether there will be unicorns in the future of our galaxy, again is unknown. Whether there can be unicorns in the future, is certainly yes. It is not an unknown. Whether or not beings with a 10th sense can exist in Existence, is an unknown. As in we don't know if Existence has the potential to produce a being with a 10th sense. So when i say it's possible that a being with a 10th sense is possible, I am in fact saying, 'it's unknown whether Existence is such that a being with a 10th sense is possible or not.

Well ..you are not a human and a human at the same time . I like to distuingh between the false self (the human self ) and the true Self (the god self ). everyone is divided into these two selves, and people develop a false self to protect their inner, more vulnerable true self. The true self refers to a sense of self based on authentic experience, and the feeling of being truly present and alive. The false self is a defensive facade .. behind which the person can feel empty, it’s behaviours being learnt and controlled rather than spontaneous and genuine. The process of developing a false self begins at a very young age. As babies, we are at our truest. We cry, laugh and react in a way that is wholly authentic to our needs.. we are simply being. healthy development requires us to fully experience this time when we have no concern for the feelings and opinions of those looking after us. However, if as babies we are denied this opportunity to be ourselves, we learn to modify our impulses in a bid to receive the love we crave, and start constructing a false self.

Yes you are partially correct . Enlightenment cannot be put onto simplified ,black and white ,categories. In the end you have to drop everything to become enlightened. And that includes the distinction between mystical or super natural..and physical or natural (I guess that's what you mean by the term "medical ". The bottom line is that..Enlightenment is beyond words. Do not concern yourself with the words so much. Words are like signs along the road. some point in the right direction. Some do not. But in either case, you don’t want to get stuck somewhere, staring at the signs. Words are descriptive. enlightenment is experience. The second requirement for enlightenment is is knowing you can alter your consciousness. Knowing you can alter your state of mind. Knowing you can..reprogram yourself. Your ‘self.’ The first requirement is a dissatisfaction with your present state of ‘self.’ This you have shown by inquiring about ‘enlightenment.’ Your ‘self’ is really just the wetware program in your brain. It can be changed, dramatically and in important and desirable ways. So now it comes down to developing and practicing the techniques to do this. Also required. Though many desirable changes can be achieved without too much difficulty.

No, there is a fine line between enlightenment and mental disorders. What you are describing probably isn't esoteric or mystical; yet it isn't..strictly speaking..llness. in a way, that if you had been born in the East, your predicament would be viewed differently. You might have been labeled "God mad," which sounds more tolerant. But in India, at least, the God mad are let loose on the streets and lead quite aimless and chaotic lives on the fringes of society. I am sympathetic with your desire to view your illuminated states as psychiatric rather than spiritual. But it's simply a false outlook

I do have the same concerns as yours. They usually call it the problem of evil I call it “The Infinite Options Problem,” and it’s goes like this: If God is all powerful, then by definition he could have created any of an infinite variety of universes. If he is all knowing, then by definition he was aware of everything about all those universes. Some of those infinite universes had to have included all possible variations on this universe, including all those where individuals made different choices from people in this universe (that must be true if it's possible for people to make choices, regardless of whether free will exists or not). At least one of those universes had to have been one where Lucifer never rebelled against God, where Adam and Eve never disobeyed God, where mankind never became wicked, and nobody would ever need to be sent to hell. God could have chosen one of those universes to create, but he didn't. He chose this one, which means he DELIBERATELY engineered a universe where he knew everything would go wrong.

I didn't understand anything. Could you please try to summarise your point in a more clear and coherent way ?

I find it useful to distinguish beetween Free Will and Will. Free Will I would define as total freedom to choose any one out of infinite possiblities. This is obviously false within the context of this finite dream. But Will is a much more subtle notion. I would define it as consciousness' intrinsic capacity to influence the unfolding of the dream. This capacity has levels and it's in direct proportion to it's wakefulness. The more awake, the more conscious control. What you are debunking here is your own idea about how Will works, and it's loaded with many assumptions. Will does not depend upon the existance of an individual self. Will has nothing to do with your capacity to guess your future thoughts. And it's not some gross mechanical process in which you are somehow displayed many options out of which you pick one. It's way more direct and magical than that. Realizing Will is more of a mystical experience than an intellectual exercise.

I agree .but we are very much stuck in the ego perspective .we don't live life like indifferent enlightened saints like ramana maharshi who could be dying from cancer and still be blissed out . So the ratio of pleasure and pain does matter as long as one is not enlightened.

Oh boy !. This one was a killer to me at the time it was released. I still listen to it from time to time . The main idea of the video is that YOU as GOD will experience EVERYTHING. Literally every single experience that can ever possibly exist ..has existed..or wil exist . You will experience it all . So you will experience all kinds of human suffering possible . The Holocaust..sickness..diseases..anguish.. depression..suicide..anxiety ..etc But of course it has the positive side of it .you will experience every orgasm that has ever been orgasmed lol. You will experience every delicious meal .every fun movie .every beautiful piece of music .every first kiss .every romantic relationship . Every drug high.etc etc .... This is all nice and good .but I don't think it's a fair deal .even if we assume that the amount of pleasure will equal exactly the amount of pain...Still it would be better if reality didn't exist at all rather than it being half good and half bad . So that's about me . What about you?