On Proof, how it works and what it is

[ilja]

So here is the deal with proof and why you cannot prove everything currently,

What proof is, it is a method for you to verify something. And how do you verify something? It's a feeling. A feeling of acceptance of that particular method, but not necessarily all of the possible believes that you could construct using this method we call "proof" ( an example for this is quantum mechanical metaphysics for many scientists ).

Now here is the limitation problem with any methodology that we would group under the name "proof".

First of all, it relies on the subjective, limited understanding of a sentient creature. Meaning what you derive from that method and your ability conducting this method. Which I think is mostly intuited by spiritual people.

And second (which coming from the first really) proof relies on what I could call here, just for the purpose, as "axioms of understanding". Meaning any methodology we would group as "proof" has a set of unquestioned rules that you need to accept for yourself, which defines the method itself, in order to work with this method (proof).

And now any behaviour that you observe as "outside"  which seems to you to behave according to some set of rules, that define a method, is considered proven. Also these unquestioned, just taken as granted, rules called "axioms" come from the understanding part of a sentient creature.

So what is happening here is that, you accept some set of rules in order to accept some set of behaviour to then maybe accept a belief you derive from this behaviour.

In essence, you accept some limitation, in order to accept something limited that follows according to it and then in therefore deny everything that does not follow according to it, viewed from that limitation.

So what you are really after is just acceptance, or verification. And maybe by expanding the axioms or loosening on these axioms, opening up to new dimensions from which you can construct a set of axioms, for example include conscious emotional verification not just understanding wise, you are transcending your methodology to "prove" something and therefore may get a bigger hold of reality than before.

Edited May 11, 2021 by ilja
idea, grammar

[Leo Gura]

Yes, very good.

How do you prove your methodology of proof? If your methodology was wrong, how would you know?

[ilja]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, very good.

How do you prove your methodology of proof? If your methodology was wrong, how would you know?

Well first, you limit yourself into incomplete forms, then you observe from a limited form another limited form and become conscious of some aspects ( if not all ) of that limited other form you observed..

Edited May 11, 2021 by ilja

[ilja]

1 hour ago, ilja said:

Well first, you limit yourself into incomplete forms, then you observe from a limited form another limited form and become conscious of some aspects ( if not all ) of that limited other form you observed..

Oh, and then you observe these aspects in another form ( a way to strengthen the acceptance of the method ) and then you generalize and map it and look for holes in or you observe something that didn't quite behave according to it, then you become conscious of more aspects, and those may stand in conflict with the old ones and then you map that down, and you find more and then you find some in yourself and so on.

Edited May 11, 2021 by ilja

[ilja]

Oh yeah right,

you prove your methodology, since it is nothing but just an acceptance of a limited form that you allowed to yourself unquestioned in the first palce , in whatever finite form you see it expressed as verfication for it.

So yeah, the loop.

But it is not unbreakable so there is something off, which is probably even a slight notion for other aspects.

Ah because it is not fully encompassing all of it, since it's that finite limited aspect.

But how can you have a loop if it is just a finite methodology?

You can't, you can only think you have a closing loop with a finite method, because your conceptualizing cannot go so far as to encompass it all, so when your conceptualizing goes slightly beyond by itself, you are able to break that loop already.

But somehow you do not always want to break that loop and somehow you cannot conceptualize something fully through one initiating implication.

But how?

I guess because any initiating implication is already functioning from a finite methodology.. hm but now what?

So getting out of that limitation of the starting (limited) implication must be a spontaneous process or eventually somewhen it could lead to an interconnectedness with another aspect you did not consider (?) or graps (?), so you deny this then.

Assuming you did not grasp it in the first place, you should be able to have that finite loop closed, or what am i missing?

yeah, if you don't grasp it you should be able to complete the finite loop (by denial ?).

Ah, maybe thinking an implication through to the point where it intersects with another aspect of reality which the implication was not based on, enables you to grasp this aspect at this point on..but you deny it actively, if you don't want to accept it!

Edited May 11, 2021 by ilja

[ilja]

maybe i dived more into evidence here than proof

hm, not necessarily.

Edited May 11, 2021 by ilja

[Mu_]

Ya I've gone down this rabbit hole before as well, its very eye opening and interesting.  One caution that I would advice particularly if your interested in Self-Realization, is not to conclude from this notion of how you proof something, that it means Self-Realization or understanding what you are or is Truth, falls within this axiom of what is required to be done to prove and know something.  Realization of Self does not fall into a category of requirements needing to be met and proved to be valid and understood.

You might find interesting this random piece I just typed up..... (shot in the dark).

The human experience a really interesting immersed Virtual Reality program.  Its so amazing that a lot of experiences of being human already have a coded experience in which the language, experience and understanding of whats taking place unquestionably feels like a body, on a earth, moving through space.

Humans also have what appear to be a capacity to ask real questions about this world, but most questions already come from the point of view of the world working as they see it and from the theories that seem to come from the time period which they are seemingly apart of.

For example, the question where did this body and earth come from, generally already presume body and earth are real objects in the first place and  those "things" have or must have a source in which "they" come from, like a somewhere else or are made of something particular object.

Now pause a moment, do you let this in.

Try and really let the presumption, no matter how irrational it seems to every indicator of reality, that just maybe, body, earth, space and time aren't what is happening, it may "seem" that way, it may "feel" that way, it may be "thought" of that way but perhaps, just maybe these are faulty conclusions to begin with.  AND that possibly there for there isn't anything that comes from somewhere else or is made of matter or energy.  This does not mean there isn't anything, since its obvious there IS, otherwise there wouldn't be any sort of experience or comprehension happening, or disagreement, or illusion.

My belief is just leaving open the possibility and dropping the inherent conclusions opens up the possibility to understand what IS.

[ilja]

12 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Realization of Self does not fall into a category of requirements needing to be met and proved to be valid and understood.

realization of Self is the Validity according to itself, that feeling comes along.

Edited May 11, 2021 by ilja

[ilja]

34 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

For example, the question where did this body and earth come from, generally already presume body and earth are real objects in the first place and  those "things" have or must have a source in which "they" come from, like a somewhere else or are made of something particular object.

perceiving an object as real is not a thought based feature, but one of feeling i would say. you don't really need to think of a door to be hindered by it.

people who deconstruct physical constracts as real do this on a feeling basis, i believe, which is where thoughts can point towards or come from.

Edited May 11, 2021 by ilja

[Mu_]

31 minutes ago, ilja said:

perceiving an object as real is not a thought based feature, but one of feeling i would say. you don't really need to think of a door to be hindered by it.

people who deconstruct physical constracts as real do this on a feeling basis, i believe, which is where thoughts can point towards or come from.

mmmm..... okay so even the feeling of a door and its hindrance would be a "seems" in the example I was trying to give.

Imagine you were conducting such experiments from within a frozen block in a ocean.  You would be pretty certain based upon everything you could tell from the consistency of what a frozen block showed you in your experiments.  Door is a feeling and is surely real, because real is whats seen and felt and its not just a thought.  This lasted for 1000000000 years.  However it was always a frozen block in a ocean with door like "seems" and experiences, that on year 1000000001 years melted.  no more ice block stable reality and physics and rules that seemed to indicate what was block/door/space/time/real/unreal/hallow/in/out/top/bottom and how everything worked.  This block is now Ocean (and never was not Ocean) with no reminiscent of Block anymore, but for so long it seemed like Block was so consistent and real, but all along it was just Ocean.

In this same way Ocean is whats happening, it just seems like a frozen block with all these "seems" and feelings and logical conclusions and reasons to call a door real.

In this suspension of conclusions of reality, Ocean may reveal itself, and it may reveal itself while walking into a seeming door as well....

cheers...

Disclaimer: Don't use this to walk into doors as though they were not there or run around claiming nothing is real or certain freaking yourself and everyone around you.  Enjoy the "seems".