3 Paradoxes That Will Change the Way You Think About Everything 

As always, thank you for watching. Get 1 free week and 25% off a premium membership to Blinkist using: www.blinkist.com/pursuitofwonder. Thank you to Blinkist for sponsoring this video.

Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.

It doesn't matter if the car is objectively or subjectively red. Perhaps someone sees a different color consistently and their red is different than your red, but what is consistent is that it is always that color being called red that we can all agree on. Consistency is the definition of truth. And these consistencies form the fundamental basis for the justification of the ideas that branch out of them, including philosophical ideas.

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." I like this quote because it highlights the beauty of embracing uncertainty and the willingness to explore the unknown. It encourages a mindset of curiosity and openness, recognizing that there is value in the process of inquiry and continuous learning rather than seeking absolute certainty.

At the end when the narrator says that someone out there, separated by distance or time & probably will never meet, is deeply connected by thought.... That was so powerful for me. Thank you for making this video; it'll help me in my conversations with those that think logic/knowledge are better than emotions/intuition. Of course it's all about the balance. ❤

Fun fact: The "Baron von Münchhausen" is also known as the "Lügenbaron" in German, which translates to "the lying Baron"

The older I get I realize we don’t know what we don’t know. There is also so much to know. And there is always half truth to everything. I also realize how easy some of us believe things that make zero sense to others

I am connected to all of you because I love you all and I'm constantly wishing everyone well, those near and far, human, alien, flora, and fauna ♡

like camus said “The struggle itself of being trapped in a bottle is enough to fill a fly’s heart. One must imagine fly happy”

I suffer with severe depression and generally a poor quality of life. This channel helps me put meaning to all of it. Thanks for the great videos (and books too!)

Man your videos are something else. You have such an eloquent way of speaking, and I love that your videos always end around the fact that we're all connected and just trying to live our lives to the fullest. It really got me thinking when you said that quote about how "there's someone out there separated by space and time, yet deeply connected to me, that someone knows me well." It made me feel good. Anyway LOVE YOUR VIDEOS!!

Reminds me of someone I used to know. He would ask "why" about my choices. It was an infinite regression "why". It made him seem a philosopher because he said "Why?". When I was tired of the steps of regression he would present his arbitrary preference. If I challenged that, his feelings would be hurt. I, in his estimation, was ungrateful and hurtful because, he would assert, he was only trying to help. I no longer speak to him.

One thing I learnt at an early age, and it still holds true to this day, is that pain hurts.

The blend of 2D and 3D in your animations are truly awestrucking.

Fun fact : the song at 10:25 is called Everywhere Exept Right Here. And he says : We can make the most of our time with each other in here , while we are still in here

I didn't enjoy my birthday last 4th of July since my wife bought and used a part of our savings as a gift for me. The thought of her giving me a gift (even the simplest) was sweet but I got so furious to the point that I felt guilty. We've been saving for the future (iykyk), but again we live in uncertainty. Now this vid came up on my feed, it made me realise that the so called "facts" or should I say "predictions" are all pointless due to the uncertainty of life. We both have jobs, we both are professionals on our own fields, we both contributed to that savings account and I got furious just because she used a bit of it for my birthday. Now my guilt is still eating me up though I've already apologized before we slept that night. When we were still dating, I've always told her that life is full of uncertainties. And now here I am, so scared of the future, living for tomorrow and not seeing the beauty of today. Thanks for this vid and you've reminded me of who I was before. I love you man!

This book was a series of four theological works that he wrote during his tenure as a Professor of law at the Nizamiyya. The first one was a summary of philosophical thought titled Maqāsid al-Falāsifa (Aims of the Philosophers), an exposition that follows Avicenna's philosophical doctrine. In Maqāsid, Al-Ghazali clearly stated that this book was intended as an introduction to Tahāfut, and he also stated that one must be well-versed in the ideas of the philosophers before setting out to refute their ideas. Tahāfut al-Falāsifa was the second work of this series. The third work, Miyar al-Ilm fi Fan al-Mantiq (Criterion of Knowledge in the Art of Logic), was an exposition of Avicenna's Logic that Al-Ghazali stated as an appendix to the Tahāfut. And the last work was Al-Iqtisād fī al-iʿtiqad (The Moderation in Belief), an exposition of Asharite theology to fill the metaphysical doctrine that he refuted and negated in the Tahāfut. This series clearly shows that Al-Ghazali did not refute all philosophical science as many scholars believe. Al-Ghazali stated that he did not find other branches of philosophy including physics, logic, astronomy, or mathematics problematic. His only dispute was with metaphysics in which he claimed that the philosophers did not use the same tools, namely logic, which they used for other sciences. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers

Not going to lie, my head was hurting through 5 mins. But im after learning and will try to get expansion on my critical thinking and philosophy. Its a great channel BTW 🙏

When I first moved to the projects I saw a guy get shot five times in the chest. I ran to the corner store and told the cashier what I saw. He responded, “It’s just drug ****. Don’t worry about it.” I realized from that day forward, nobody cares about actions. They only care about the context under which they were committed.

Paradoxes always have a self imposed limits. Freeing yourself from the limits, frees you from nearly all of these 'problems'.

You have put into words of thoughts I could never express about my philosophy of the world. I’ve always had a hard time connecting with people because I’m aware that everything I think or feel is just an abstract thought of the mind. I have a motto that is “I know nothing but what I’ve experienced.” Great video! Cheers.

Existence is an inherent balance between every duality, a living paradox

Very well done. You always nail the breakdowns and I love the variety of quotes you tie in to all of your videos. Thank you for reminding all of us that we're not searching alone.

Truth comes from within…good luck explaining it to someone who hasn’t experienced it!!

Thank you I don't think you understand how much this channel has provided value to my life. Thank you!

7:35 For the reasons given, it may be impossible to definitively proof the truth of any statement. Despite that, I think that knowledge is possible. Any "fact" that allows us to predict outcomes or plan for contingencies is knowledge because it is useful. It is knowledge because it is useful. It's like physicists. They have different models of reality and depending on the context, it may be enough to use a simpler model or maybe a more complex model is needed. The model may not be 100% accurate, but if it lets you make predictions, then it is useful and I would argue that its usefulness makes it knowledge.

The loop that we are based in is a recursive loop where recognition is the base case which breaks the previous loop and begins another. The older perspective doesn't factor in recursive loops and even when using a false base case, still over a long enough time line the problem of knowing solves itself by leaning into infinite regression. Meaning solving itself, not with an answer but with a negative answer or rephraising of the previous problem itself.

Best channel for getting depression symptoms

The answer of truth comes not from replying with an answer but rather through the action. Truth is revealed and one can only bare witness.

Increasingly with age, I'am realising that it is questioning that is the essence of human existence! Not finding answers ceased to cause anxiety, or worry anymore to me, for that is the norm considering the almost infinitely expansive nature of universe, and comparatively infinitesimal magnitude of human beings, and more so their temporally ephemeral existence in the big schema! But at an individual or personal level, increasingly, every time a question pops up in my mind I seem to feel alive and kicking!

And yes thinking about this is getting my eyes crossed

This paradox is akin to basic saying in Statistics: If you assume nothing, you learn nothing. Statistical models do basic assumptions, and learn through modelling. Then we check if the assumptions are approximately satisfied through the data observed. Remember, no models are correct, BUT some are more useful than others. To solve the paradox, we can focus on what is useful for you, or the society, i.e., practicality.

My intuition makes it true. But true to only me and my perspective

Just finished you book and now found this channel. Love this stuff, thanks for doing what you do.

This is such a well put together ad, didn't break the immersion for a moment, perfect.

To use the metaphor of the fly-bottle: It's like being a fly, flying into a bottle, declaring that only what exists inside the bottle is knowledge and certainty, then trying to expand the area inside the bottle by bashing your fly-body into the glass. We all know the path into the bottle and can leave whenever we want.

This channel is pure education. I have become a bit obsessed with the channel, not gonna lie. It did change a lot the way in which I think about existance, reality, consciousness. Made me curious to read more around philosophy, astronomy and science. I feel wholesome after each and every one of your videos Pursuit of Wonder, thank you for creating this unique and purely awesome content❤

What a well written and presented video. Thank you.

In the end: Everything is a belief and it requires a belief to believe a belief. Even existence itself and the "self" are based on a belief. Actually, nothing exists (no thing) and nothing IS happening (not "nothing happened"). This is an awesome video! Thank you for sharing.

I want to thank you for this video. It has given me some hope, as I struggle with questions. It defines some questions, some paths to answers, and leaves open lots of things, but that's ok. Thanks for the discourse that has me thinking more!

I always love to see your new content. You videos are thought provoking and your books are a real treat. Thank you for all of the effort that you invest sharing your talent with the world.

Luckily, knowledge is not "justified true belief" :) The interested may look up David Deutch's extensions of Popper, or Brett Hall's discussions of their work. And, as Feynman alluded to, we do not need to (nor should we) assume that absolute or fundamental knowledge is possible. It is perfectly possible to have knowledge about about a phenomenon or a process without it being absolutely true or eternal or fundamental. As long as our new conjectures provide explanations for hitherto unexplained problems, our knowledge is progressing. And even though there is no final, complete, or eternal goal of our progress, we can know more today than we did yesterday. great video, in any case !

A very good summation of the state of man without God or a knowledge of the true nature of God. To sum up Richard Feynman's statement in one word, humility. No progress in knowledge can be made without humility. Great video.

Glad I have clarity. That was exhausting.

"What do we know and how do we know?" Thank you for this presentation. A book of meditations called Steps to Knowledge states it this way: "You want what you think you know... This constitutes the basis of your understanding of yourself and your world. In fact this constitutes the basis of your identity. You will find however, upon honest examination that your understanding is based upon assumptions primarily, and these assumptions have not been founded upon your experience to a very great degree, if at all. Today... devote your total attention to examining your assumptions, think about the things you really think you know, including things you have not thought to question before... You begin to see the difference between what you think you know and real Knowledge itself...Understanding this [difference] may be upsetting... but it is absolutely essential for you to give you the impetus and the desire to discover your true foundation in the world." (STK, Marshall Vian Summers)

This was well put together! What a lovely presentation! 👏🏽

I love this channel, thank you so much, keep up this beautiful work.

9:49 "Sometimes you walk away simply feeling that you are part of the nature of things - that you've been heard, understood; that someone out there, who you'll likely never know, separated by potentially immense distance, and time, is deeply connected to you in thought, in sensibility, that someone knows you well." Can you just imagine how incredible life would be if every person on this planet knowingly had this other person somewhere else? Would it become everyone's life's quest to find this other person? Or would just knowing this person exists be enough?

I quitted all my philosophy forums when I realized philosophical discussions were pointless. They're just ways to excecise your mind. But, if you're in it to understand like me. You'd get disappointed, then bored. It's just chasing after the wind

Another absolutley stellar video! Ur productions always leave me feeling humbled, yet mentally enriched and fulfilled.

Very beautiful rendition of one of my favourite tunes❤

It was interesting hearing how 'knowing' itself falls into a paradox. As in, 'how can we know that we know,' but some objective truths must exist and we should continue to study and verify knowledge and even if there is no absolute truth, the search to find it definitely takes us places, or atleast we think it does.

Yes, we seem to have our own relative demands on what it takes for something to be deemed true or real. Ultimately it may be the state of knowing that is most important, and not the trail of logic and truth that lead to it's existence, because everything under enough scrutiny ends up unexplainable at it's core.

Now I can only think of that one Cartoon Network (or was it Boomerang?) commercial: "Why are smurfs blue?" Grouchy Smurf: "We're not, we're green; adjust your TV."

I really enjoyed this video, its the journey not the destination or what you will do when you get there

What a way to express the human dilemma. Awesome 👍 🙏

These are old dilemmas rooted in a lack of definitions of truth and knowledge. We can only have working truths and working knowledge. Ultimate knowledge neither attainable nor necessary.

1. What do we know? How do we know? The assumption is that we can't answer one without the other, but the statement How do we know is based on the fact that we know at all. The main issue with this paradox assumes that we must know in order for a fact to be true, as if our inability to prove we know invalidates the world around us. How do we know can be answered without a human present. It is the basic understanding of how consciousness works. The question by itself describes the process by which humans perceive knowledge. We don't need to know in order for the ability to know to exist. 2. How can we prove anything is fundamentally true? Realistically, a paradox assumes two contradictions are true, by some means. So in order for something to be a paradox, you need to accept something initially. So the question assuming that you can't assume anything automatically discredits the paradox, because either it disproves itself, or it's not a paradox, because it's just a question. The 3rd reason to prove "paradox" 2 is stupid, because it acts as if senses are not a valid source of information. While yes, you need to validate the senses in this context, but it treats the senses as if it holds no logical value. 3. Can there be any philosophical progress? The only validity to this "paradox" is the assumption "if we can't have any absolute knowledge..." which contradicts the rest of this video, as it is an assumption of itself based on previous statements. The basis of this video is not paradoxes, but fallacies.

I found the discussion on the Munchausen trilemma and the nature of fundamental truth really thought-provoking. It's fascinating how we grapple with the question of whether we can ever truly prove anything to be fundamentally true. In terms of philosophical progress, I believe diving into epistemology is crucial. Descartes' famous statement, "Cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am," serves as a solid axiomatic foundation. While acknowledging the possibilities of being a brain in a vat or even a program experiencing a simulation (which leads to radical skepticism), this axiom allows us to philosophically advance. Additionally, our primary perceptions through our senses play a crucial role. By relying on our five senses-sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste-we perceive the reality around us. These perceptions serve as another set of axioms. From this point forward, our philosophical exploration relies (in my opinion of course) on Evidentialism. Unlike rationalists such as Descartes, who hold a lot more presuppositions as self-evident, the evidentialist approach requires us to rely on evidence to support our beliefs and claims. Evidentialism requires us to provide evidence to justify its own validity. It's a self-referential loop that demands introspection. How can we provide evidence to support the concept of providing evidence? It becomes a matter of epistemic circularity. However, we can argue for the coherence and effectiveness of Evidentialism by highlighting its track record in producing reliable and verifiable knowledge. The success of Evidentialism in scientific inquiry and other fields demonstrates its reliability. Yet, we must recognize that this argument still relies on the assumption that evidence is the most reliable way to acquire knowledge. It brings us back to the circularity within the framework itself. Evidentialism requires evidence to justify Evidentialism. In essence, Evidentialism becomes a self-supporting system, where the justification for its truth lies within its own framework. It becomes an inherent belief that guides our epistemological endeavors, even if its direct justification remains circular. By acknowledging this inherent circularity and engaging in critical reflection, we gain a deeper understanding of the epistemic foundations we rely upon. It allows us to explore alternative perspectives within the realm of epistemology and question the limits and possibilities of knowledge. Overall, this video raises some very thought-provoking questions about the nature of truth and the foundations of our beliefs, shaping our understanding of the world. It reminds us to approach these philosophical inquiries with curiosity and a willingness to critically examine our epistemic frameworks. Sorry for the long text, but this subject is not a easy one to compress in to a more palatable small text. There is so much more I would like to elaborate, however, I believe I've been rambling enough as it is. Awesome video!

I see knowledge as a house of cards being build, until we realize one is faulty we can continue building. If one is faulty the house of cards breaks down (hopefully only partially) and we can restart with building our knowledge base.

Love this channel❤

Ive been caught in a paradoxical loop at the DMV. Love that place

In relation to the memory, what we know versus how we know. Normal people really feel this way? I had to learn how to learn and I had to solve this paradox to break through my autism. I thought it was a standard knowledge base for normal people. The Paradox is an easy solve, what you know is something you need to surrender as wondering what you may know contaminates what you have observed and your mind has taken the time an effort to memorize. How you know something needs to be split into multiple categories. Category 1 did you need to calculate or think to figure out what you have observed? Category 2 is your interpretation of your concern over quantifying what you know a reflexive training, experience, or fear. Category 3 has someone challenged what you've experienced and have stored into what you know and are the reasons related to category 1 or 2 in expression of the person who is challenged what you know? This is my mental sorting system, it's never failed me and I've never had a paradox even with living with my autism. It's okay to be wrong about what yourself or another individual observes. What is not appropriate is challenging the reality around you because of a lack of self-confidence and your body's capacity observe and store knowledge and allow others to do the same. PSA: there are mental disorders and challenges that people face that are tied directly to story memories, I encountered these problems myself, everyone's unique and sometimes you either train yourself to memorize and learn the way your unique body and mind does or you have to learn to come to terms that your mind has a disability and there's no shame on relying on others that you can trust to help you live comfortably. Sorry for the really long post the memory paradox hit me right in The Feelers.

The fact, that we can never stand on solid ground, IS the solid ground. It's solid and adamant AF, if one fully and completely realises this. ❤

This channel provides really deep perspectives about life.😊

Kiff video. Got some thinking and rewatching to do. And also... clever plug at the end there. haha. Real smooth like an earlier Grand Line Review/New World Review call-to-action.

My tentative replies: 1 - starting with no knowledge, a process may or may not be discovered by "trying stuff". It just so happens that testing and experimentation are very good at finding usable, effective & reliable knowledge. 2 - there is no way to prove truth, but there is a way to prove reliable utility for mundane things. For philosophical concepts, you can also dispense with a need for ultimate truth, go down as far as you like and then "try on" a logical axiom until you find one that fits (such as "value must be reflexive" to escape nihilism). You can also, when you reach the end of your knowledge, admit you don't know. Ignorance is inescapable and that's a good thing IMO. 3 - Philosophical progress is not about finding the ultimate truth. It's about building a toolbox for exploration of ideas.

I've had this hypothetical idea about how the universe works forever now. I look at ecosystems and I see that they recycle energy and find ways to keep a balance. So I can very easily imagine the greater universe's ecosystem following in that manner. Black holes are the perfect candidate for a galactic recycler. The other end of a black hole could be a white hole of unimaginable forces and could connect a tube between 2 bubbles that could represent universe's. Then the cycle can continue. Each universe has the ability to recycle energy and matter from itself to feed another universe, creating a ecosystem that is not wasting matter but converting/reusing the matter from old to feed the new. Just like how forest's exist on our planet. It's symbiotic and destructive and creative all at the same time. In my opinion, it's very messy, & abstract. The only set thing is Matter is recycled, converted not destroyed. *Just because matter is converted doesn't mean that it's stable. I feel like there's a probability of many unstable "universe's" It's chaotic but every now and then the conversion cycle could land on a stable form..? Just like how the forest floor is abstract. The underbrush, dirt, rock, is all abstractly situated. I feel like the cycle of the way the universe recycles matter would be very similar. Any matter that gets recycled would probably be converted into it's most basic essential form once it's thru it's process. Super heated gases, plasma, etc. Basically like a seed. A foundation of a universe being transplanted. Some work; Some don't. Idk? Just a gut feeling I've gotten from going on long hikes in the Oregon wilderness throughout my Life. 🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️ It's facinating how when we look around & we see all this complexity with-in the Universe. That complexity basically comes from: ~{"Differences"}~ The Factor of how "Differences" interact seems to be the key factor in keeping dynamic systems functioning. Such as: *{High pressure/low pressure, hot/cold temperatures, different densities, viscosities, turbulent flow, static electric charges/discharges, electromagnet waves. Different velocities/angular momentum. Different amounts of energy/mass/frequency/vibrations. Different boundary layers between different materials or physical regions such as: (Land/water/oil/air/soap bubbles/ atmosphere's/space. The different regions in space with different particle density/background radiation, solar wind/membrane layers/bubble's/cloud regions, nebula's/Galaxy's/Galaxy clusters/ Cosmic filaments/less dense regions of space compared to dense regions of space.) All of these things are basic differences but create a way for the dynamic engine with-in Nature to continue flowing and operating to create and convert energy.} Just Like How a battery 🔋 transfers + charges through a membrane layer to a - charged side. Like how regions of high/low temperature 🌡️ create winds. In water- add some factors and It creates ocean currents and flow. Then internally inside our planet it creates plate tectonics, planetary convection, geothermal activity, a magnetic field around our planet, to hold a atmosphere. The list goes on 🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️🌐☯️⚛️ The natural world around us is just utterly facinating to me.

I came up with a quote a while ago relatable to the topic of the video. "We believe we know, but really all we know is we believe."

As fallible beings, we have zero knowledge that is absolute. We generally do not know enough to justify having "beliefs". We should instead have "theories". For every theory that we hold as favorite, we should also have some alternate theories, or else we have not contemplated all the possibilities. All knowledge should be regarded as tentative.

The super presupposition is “I am.” It is the fundamental first principle. You can’t prove to anyone else “I am” but you don’t need to in order to know the truth - “I am.” From “I am” we derive all logic, reason and interaction with what we perceive to be reality.

We can not think outside of logic and language ,even this is also logical .we are limited

We can prove only one thing, that you as an observer exist. But you cannot prove that to anyone else only to yourself.

I can’t, and don’t wish to, dispute any of the content of this video. It called me back to high school geometry class, where there were postulates given that didn’t require proof, but without which no proof could ever be given. We all start with some instinctual model of our worlds, communicate with each other in imprecise, subjective language to share ideas and evidence, and hope to improve our knowledge models as we go along (“all” is probably an overstatement; some people seem to prefer a static model impervious to change, rejecting perception instead of modifying understanding).

I think the answer to "how do we know?" Is experience. Experience and necessity is the mother of knowledge and invention. I know things because I experienced it. "I know because I experienced it myself." Everything else is just a theory that people believe is truth so it has been accepted as true.

And this is why you end up having a 700 page proof that 1+1=2.

Any color has a consistent waveform. Regardless of how a person "sees" it, the wave does not change per that specific color. You may not see red the same way I do, but it doesn't mean it isn't red or true.

These are the thoughts that came to me and my friend on acid as teens crazy how deep in thought I’ve been about just the way this place works we call life

The truth and justification you are looking for is in the interactions. Nothing is singular. We know things are true because of how those truths interact with other truths. Everything seems to always turn out self consistent. Observers mostly agree on results of testing interactions. Basically the scientific method. We don't just state knowledge, we test how it interacts with all the other things we know. The more things work together the more knowledgeable we become. Knowing something is about knowing how it interacts with other things.

You can easily prove something to be true without it requiring a justification!😂 Example: Do questions exist? The answer is obviously yes. But even beyond that, it is impossible for it not to be true. If questions don't exist, then we'd never be able to contemplate it's existence in the first place. Therefore, the statement "Questions exist." is just one example of an objective truth. It requires no circular reasoning or any axioms. It's true because it would be a paradox if it wasn't.

Also the Paradox :- Will dad ever return after he went out to get milk 😭

i have to comment on this because i have a new law that has happened to me that i dont know what to name, well i think its something but ive questioned myself over and over about it and it seems super logical. ive also asked very many people and they dont have an answer for it because they have experienced moments of it as well.

Thank you for providing value to society❤

Richard Feynman was an incredible and amazing person. I've read all of his books and many of his works. "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is one of the best books I've ever read. Wish he was still around.

The only problem with this channel is that it's so good that you wanna watch all the vids when you should just watch one and let it digest.

Intuition is genuinest justification for knowledge

Well in the first one, clearly the idea of knowing something is incorrectly defined as this is less of a paradox and more of thought loop, it is his definition of knowing things that prevents him from knowing things

This reminds me of my daughter... She is 8, and she always infinitely regresses with every single second of every question she ever asked LOL

Simply brilliant! Seems like the process of thinking is more valuable than the solution.

Do what works for you . Know what you know. have faith in what is.

Two absolute facts that cannot be disputed Absolute fact: "Cogito ergo sum." I cannot defend belief in the existence of any other person, entity or thing. I cannot defend the existence of time or space. I can only defend my perceptions of these phenomena. What I cannot deny is I perceive these phenomena. Therefore, I AM. Absolute fact: I did not create myself. My perceptions began without perceiving the beginning. I simply began to be aware. Even my awareness of time had a beginning. All subsequent perceptions are built upon the first perceptions. I cannot control the beginning of perception. I might be able to control my last perception, but that cannot be proven. I am left with a self awareness of perceiving, and a perception that I can influence my perceptions. Three: All perceptions have a cause. This is something like cause-effect. The difference is I do not claim cause and effect of phenomena, but only of my perceptions of phenomena. I concede not only do I know infinitesimally small amount of causes and effects, I know none and must restrict my absolute knowledge to cause and effect of my perceptions. 4) I did not cause my perceptions. I began perceiving without will power, without being aware I was becoming aware. Because ally perceptions have a cause and I am not that cause then I conclude the cause of my perceptions transcends my perceptions. I further conclude the cause transcends time and space, because those phenomena are perceptions I can grasp. This i name the cause God. I cannot think, perceive, or be aware of time or space without God. Any thought that denies the denies the first thought rests on emptiness.

Thats why Faith is the substance of things is such a powerful statement

In formulating any philosophy the first consideration must always be: What can we know? That is, what can we be sure we know, or sure that we know we knew it, if indeed it is at all knowable. Or have we simply forgotten it and are too embarrassed to say anything? Descartes hinted at the problem when he wrote, 'My mind can never know my body, although it has become quite friendly with my legs.

One quote I love from science is everything we know is wrong but some of it is useful. Example a map is always wrong because a tree may grow or get chopped down or a stone moved but that map is still useful so we view it as being right.

Similar to the flies in the bottle. We are characters in a simulation, who want to see/escape the wires/conductors, within which we exist. The paradox is that it is impossible to exist outside the wires, because the wires 'support' the fabric of our being, in the same way dark matter supports matter, but we cannot detect it.

I'm a chemist and we know something is true when we consistently make accurate predictions using mathematics and modeling with the Scientific Method AND we further know when others independently make the same accurate predictions. We chemists and physicists are rigorously trained to think about truth and reality TOTALLY different from everyone else.

Proof only exists within what can be observed. A story can be fiction, but it's observation shows another view of reality beyond what we consider as a fact in the circumstances of what we call our experience.

Thank you

One can find absolute truths but only within a given system of belief. Philosophy is valuable as it grants the capacity for more systems which grants capacities for more contradictions to coexist peacefully.

Also known as a daily conversation with a 4 year old