Leo's Blog: Infinite Insights

Watch this:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWcQxdEDPRJ

Okay, so here's what's wrong with that:

• Reality is of course Eternal. Every moment is Eternal. Eternity is orthogonal to space-time. Space-time takes place inside of Eternity. But it's important to distinguish Reality from the universe. Reality is more fundamental than the concept of universe. Before the Big Bang, Reality still existed.
• The expansion of the stars in no way contradicts an Eternal Reality. Whether the Big Bang is true or not (and that is still an open question), Reality is Eternal. The Big Bang does not contradict or violate Eternity.
• 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is limited human thinking. 2nd Law does not apply to Reality as a whole, only to finite parts. It does not matter how the universe ends because Reality will keep going forever.
• The universe doesn't need an external supernatural creator because the universe IS the supernatural self-creator. The universe just IS what God looks like.
• There is no such thing as a universe, there is only your LIFE, your Consciousness. The universe is content inside of your LIFE. And your LIFE is not a physical object, nor is it a universe.
• Consciousness is eternally old. Consciousness has existed FOREVER! That's why it's God.
• Did the universe have a beginning? Maybe. Either way is fine. But YOU did not have a beginning. YOU have existed forever. The universe's beginning would be inside of YOU, like a movie playing on an Eternal TV set. You aren't a character inside the universe. The universe is the backdrop inside the Eternal TV set of YOU.
• Nothing brings Existence into existence. Existence always exists. Existence is an Absolute. Existence itself cannot have a beginning or start.

Physicist Lawrence Krauss speaking silly things about the origins of the universe.

This is pseudo-science masquerading as science:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DXz2b_DBpLx

This is like saying that to create eggs from nothing, all you need is a chicken. LOL

You can't just "add gravity into the mix". Gravity is not nothing! Gravity has to be hallucinated, imagined, created! You cannot use gravity to explain how Reality came into existence because Reality exists prior to gravity. Gravity is not fundamental.

This example demonstrates the poor ontological reasoning of physicists. Physcists are not understanding the depth of the ontological problem of getting something from nothing.

The only way to truly get something from nothing is if nothing is Infinity/God! Which, of course, it is. Not gravity. Forget about gravity.

You don't need to create individual particles with impunity, as Krauss says. You create EVERYTHING with impunity!

INFINITY means you get Lawrence Krauss for free! Out of thin air! Via God's Will alone!

The key to solving ontology and the origins problem is to realize that you can just have EVERYTHING for free right from the start. Because no limits exist. Where would the first limit come from? There are no limits in the beginning! In fact, a beginning is a limit, so not even a beginning exists!

Reality has no beginning because it is UNLIMITED.

How many centuries is it going to take physicists to understand this?

No. It's not a "natural miracle". Reality is a Supernatural Miracle.

No, you cannot use the gravitational field to solve ontology. If you are using your mind properly you will understand that. But the physicist is too busy to stop and really think. The gravitational field is a finite thing, which means it could not have created itself. What created gravity? Obviously INFINITY.

"To create stuff you don't need stuff, you just need quantum mechanics."

No. The only way to create stuff is by first having INFINITY. Quantum mechanics did not create Reality. Quantum mechanics cannot create stuff because it is stuff.

How come I — a non-scientist — understand this shit and an MIT educated physicist doesn't? Because I took meta-science seriously and he didn't. Why did I take it seriously and he didn't? Because I actually cared about understanding Reality. Yes, it is that simple. The purity of your intention matters. If you actually cared about understanding Reality you wouldn't be a physicist, you'd be a philosopher. Physicists don't ask deep enough questions to ever understand Reality. Because they are too busy doing physics! How sick is that? These days you gotta be a non-physicist just to understand that physics is stupid.

No physicist understands what is time, space, gravity, energy, matter, force, distance, charge, observers, life, death, consciousness, sanity, mind, memory, self, other, love, thought, truth, rationality, color, sound. Physicists don't even understand nothing! They know less than nothing. And yet, rockets can still fly to the moon. Isn't that amazing? That's how twisted this shit is. That is the magic of science.

Awareness of how your mind works is not technically science, however, no science can be trusted without it. Science assumes a properly functioning mind, which no one has without decades of non-scientific work. Mastering your mind is not part of science, but without it there can be no science. Science is nothing more than a sub-set of mind. But science is arrogantly disinterested in truly understanding the mind because that’s not “scientific”. This is the stupidity of science. If you were truly intelligent you would instantly understand that before doing any science you first have to master your mind, which requires years of serious but non-scientific work.

Of course, you could re-frame mastering the mind as scientific work, (which would be the proper course), but scientists are too closedminded to do that. Materialist scientists cannot allow mastering the mind to be re-framed as scientific work because that would open the door the “woo” that they have attached their identity to demonizing and ridiculing.

It makes no difference how many lab experiments you complete, how many papers you publish, how many academic prizes you win, or how many large particle colliders you build — none of that moves you closer to mastering your mind. The mind that you are using every day to do your fucking science!

How can science be pure when the lens on the instrument is so filthy from neglect?

It is not merely that science neglects to clean the instrument. The problem is much worse. It's that science is an ideology that rationalizes and normalizes why the instrument should not be cleaned. Science demonizes the cleaning of the instrument! Because science is the dirt that would be cleaned away. The dirt it crafty. It doesn't want to be cleaned away. It clings for its life. Falsehood will not die quietly. It will kick and scream all the way.

Notice this treacherous mental trap: If your paradigm says that all that matters is objective facts, when I come along and tell you that your problem is not in the facts but in your lack of introspection, lack of self-reflection, lack of consciousness, lack of contemplation, lack of epistemic understanding, lack of deeper existential questioning — you can dismiss everything I say as “but these aren’t objective facts!” And thus you will be stuck in your “only objective facts matter” paradigm.

Contemplate this: If you exist in a paradigm that only values objective facts and devalues everything else, what happens if there exist significant things outside of objective facts? How will your mind ever see that? It won't! It can't! You are paradigm-locked and can't see it.

When scientists overly fixate on objective facts, they ignore the elephant in the room, which is how your mind makes sense of the facts. The problem is not in the facts, the problem is that your mind is an unconscious survival machine that cherrypicks facts to survive. In order to do science properly, the scientist must stop fixating on objective facts and master the psychology of his ego-mind. This is a meta-scientific endeavor which most scientists never do because the academic sub-culture tells them its an unnecessary distraction, and even dares to call it “pseudo-science” or the dreaded “woo”. Furthermore, the academic survival pressure-cooker does not allow free time for such "impractical" pursuits. Academia uses a classic cult tact here: keep your members underpaid and overworked, so they don't have time to doubt. Academics are so over-worked that they don't have time to stop and think about the entire system — "That is above your pay-grade. Shut up and calculate! You better have those research results by Monday morning!"

I got some news for you scientists: without “woo”, all your science turns to shit. Woo is the one thing that can save science from human epistemic pervertry. You cannot understand epistemology or ontology without "woo". And if you get epistemology and ontology wrong, nothing else you do can be right. Science cannot work without a deep and proper meta-scientific foundation. But science demonizes meta-science as “not science” and “pseudo-science”, which is very foolish, and why science deserves to be mocked and criticized. Science is far too closed to meta-scientific matters. That’s why science is so stagnant. Scientific and academic group-think and conformity has normalized the demonization of meta-scientific matters. If you are a scientist, you should take meta-science more seriously than science. You got it backwards. Solve meta-science first, then ask whether you still even care about science.

Scientists foolishly believe, “Well, but if you present us enough data in a properly formatted research paper, we will change our theories.” No! No you wont. This shows a stunning lack of awareness of how the mind works. You are not understanding how deep the epistemic problem goes. What your mind requires as proof is the thing at issue! The proof you require is dictated by your paradigm. If your paradigm is wrong, no amount of proof or argument can satisfy you because the proof is coming from outside of what your mind comprehends!

There is no amount of facts and proof that you can present to a Nazi mind to get it to admit that the entire Nazi paradigm is wrong. This is obvious to anyone who isn't a Nazi. But it is not understood by anyone with respect to science! The Nazi mind and the scientific mind are not as different as you think. They operate on exactly the same survival principles. Nazism is survival. Science is survival. Survival is the master. Survival runs your mind. It makes no difference what the content of your mind happens to be: quantum mechanics or Nazism. Studying quantum mechanics does not save you from survival!

You still believe that your mind is playing an honest game. No! The scientific mind is not an honest actor. It does not care about truth, it cares about survival. The scientific mind is really a scientific ego-mind. An ego-mind that has hijacked science to do it survival. It will not relinquish the scientific paradigm willingly. There is no amount of argument, data, experiment, or proof that will get a scientific ego to drop science. Because the ego is not a honest actor. It never was. The scientific mind was never playing a fair game. It was rigging the game in its own favor from day one. When this is pointed out to it, it will be denied, regardless of the evidence or logic. Because the scientific ego-mind is just a cornered rat doing anything it can to survive. This is what scientists don’t understand about the game they are playing. Science is survival game you are playing, while you tell yourself that you’re doing truth-seeking. That is the self-deception of science. There is no way to prove this to scientists because this requires self-honesty and self-reflection. This is a matter of psychology. This is not a matter about objective facts, this is about the inherent dishonesty of the human mind.

When a scientist says, “If you just write a solid research paper with your ideas, scientists will take it seriously” he is assuming that science is an honest actor. Of course it isn’t! Science has never been an honest actor. You only believe that because your mind is enmeshed with the system. You are defending a system that has hijacked your mind. And you refuse to admit to yourself that it has hijacked your mind. You literally don’t want to understand what I am saying! Your ego cannot allow what I am saying to land, because it would be suicidal. Scientists naively think that this issue is about truth and facts. No! This issue is about your survival. You are trying to survive using science and I am trying to take that way from you. Your ego is not going to like that. The more your survival hinges on science, the less you will like what I say because it will hurt too much.

If a serious scientist understands everything I say, it will hurt him so badly that he will be depressed and angry for weeks, for months, for years. Because he was hoodwinked by science. It takes a very rare individual to go through that pain. But I am asking you to go through it. That is the cost of advancing science. Science does not advance as fast as it could because the hurt to the scientific ego-minds who govern science is more than they can bear. If you are a scientist, I can help you liberate your mind from the shackles of science, but it will be painful because you’re in it so deep. Your mind IS it! Your mind IS the thing we're deconstructing. We are not just deconstructing a theoretical system, we are deconstructing YOU! — YOUR MIND! Nevertheless, I recommend you bite the bullet. I promise that realizing God is worth it. And if you truly care about science, you should want it to stand on a solid foundation, not this house of cards we have now.

This core issue in science is not in the facts, it's in science's unwillingness to die. Science refuses to DIE! There are no facts you can present to science that will make it amenable to its own annihilation. The reason science is so corrupt and refuses to change is because this is a matter of life and death. The issue is that scientists don't understand that, they think it is about truth.

"But Leo! Why should science die?" It must die. Because it isn't Truth.

Science has usurped God's immorality, claiming it it for itself. This falsehood cannot stand. Science is finite and mortal. Only Truth is immortal. Yes, science will die. This is what every scientist is in denial about. You have fooled yourself with science and now it is too embarrassing to admit.

Now, tell me, which scientific journal will publish this article?

"But Leo! This isn't science research."

If the ideas contained here are not relevant to science, then science has lost its fucking mind.

Humans gauge truth based on popularity and social acceptability, not truth itself. This is the case even with the best scientists and academics. They are not above this trap at all, because scientists are not taught how to have a direct relationship with truth. Science is a consensus-building social activity. It is not a direct relationship with truth. Scientists and academics do not understand this. They honestly believe they are above this. They are kidding themselves. All of science revolves around social acceptability. The only ideas that will be seriously considered as officially part of science are those which are socially acceptable to the typical middling scientist. This means that the most radical and deepest truths will not be part of scientific consensus, not until we’re all dead. This has always been how science works. This is nothing new. It was this way 500 years ago and nothing has changed.

Consider: the only reason you believe that gravity bends space-time is because it is the socially accepted view. You have no direct relationship with the truth of gravity or space-time. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The only reason you believe in the force of gravity is because it is socially accepted. You have never actually questioned the reality of forces or gravity. You have no idea what a force is, or what gravity is, and yet you just accept them as truth. Why? Because you gauge truth by social acceptance. But wait, it gets even worse! The only reason people respect and believe science is because it is the socially accepted view. People have no direct experience of the validity of science. It's just social acceptability! That's the glue that holds the entire house of cards together! This is not understood. It is denied, minimized, rationalized away, and cleverly ignored.

Scientists unwittingly gauge truth based on social acceptability — which is epistemically perverted. What humans find acceptable, agreeable, or rational is completely irrelevant to truth. But not to science. That's why science is not truth.

What do you think Nobel prizes are about? What do you think PhDs are about? What do you think the Ivy League is about? What do you think tenure is about? What do you think peer review is about? What do you think citing sources is about? What do you think h-index is about? What do you think a resume full of elite university employment is about? What do you think kids and their parents dying to get them into Harvard is about? What do you think billionaires donating to Harvard is about? What do you think popular science books are about? What do you think podcasts interviewing scientists is about? What do you think academic debates are about? What do you think getting grants and funding is about? Social acceptance! It's a social fucking game that dares to think of itself as truth-seeking. What every scientist desperately wants is social acceptance. This is usually not a problem because their work is so constrained that anyone who would do radical work was already kicked out by the system. The only people left inside the system are lapdogs who do socially acceptable work. As soon as your work becomes socially unacceptable, you will lose your job, so most don't even bother to do that kind of work.

Academia works like this: they put a gun to your head and tell you to do research. But if your research reveals something radically different and socially unacceptable, they will shoot you in the head. That, simply speaking, is why God cannot be found in a university. "I AM GOD! And you all are corrupt and full of shit!" is not a socially acceptable research project.

The most important thing you need to learn in this work is to develop a personal, direct relationship to truth. To never gauge truth through social consensus or human sources. You need to cut society and humanity out of the truth-seeking loop. As long as you are using other humans to gauge what is true, you are epistemically fucked. And if you are using me to gauge truth, you haven't yet learned the lesson. The only source of truth is you. Stop looking at others to know what truth is. Stop being impressed by social consensus and acceptance.

You want to reach a stage of cognitive development and mental autonomy where the entire human race could believe the sky is green and it doesn't shake your conviction in what you know is true. That is how real truth-seeking is done, not by peaking over your shoulder to see what others think. Truth is your immediate consciousness. Truth is your own mind. You don't need to ask anyone what it is.