what is impossible to prove and know

what is impossible to prove and know, in truth or false, or right and wrong?

it can either be mathematical, philosophical or real examples

i made a similar topic what you believe but cant prove, but this is more about the notion of impossibility

God
0 and infinity
how large the universe is
afterlife

Give me an internally consistent definition of god THEN we can talk about whether or not it exists.

Zero and infinity are abstract concepts, they exists as abstractions.

The after life is called decomposition.

As of the technology and knowledge we have today, we can't prove "souls" exist. Who knows if that will change, but I imagine it's too lucrative to ever prove.

God is a matter of personal experience from the heart. A pure heart will see God it was written. I confessed my love for someone once and I saw God. It was a genuine intense feeling. I had reached the core self. That is where God is.

moody said:

As of the technology and knowledge we have today, we can't prove "souls" exist. Who knows if that will change, but I imagine it's too lucrative to ever prove.

Click to expand...

We can't prove unicorns exist, what does that imply?

Cognisant said:

We can't prove unicorns exist, what does that imply?

Click to expand...

The gender unicorns wisdom will forever remain unknown?

When I say I saw God this is literal. A snow-white void. Her body covered in a liquid gold cloak flowing with energy. I could not have created it myself. It was a vision. There is nothing like it that I can compare it to in my experience. The lucidity was beyond level 10. It was not a hallucination. I've had those before and they were plastic on a 2D background. This was 3D, translucent, and soft. I was like I could have touched her. What I saw was a result of purification. A transformation of the brain network. Like the shimmering of the transporters on Star Trek the next generation. Like heat being taken away from a burn. Soothing cold shimmering.

In any ritual, energy is being passed through a system. The will is important to the invocation of a spirit or waveform. It is where all images/representations are indwelt. Waveforms to be autonomous must be nested in such a way to act on it will. This is measured by control theory. The autonomy it has rises to the surface but if unstainable dissolves. Absolute means undissolvable in liquid. The absolute is a mind that is hardwired solid not fluidity of undifferentiated psyche. Absolute will is control over every aspect.

God is at the core of will. It is the reflection of turning perception inward. God is seeing through your eyes. If we could invert our gaze we would see God. God is not an abstraction. God must be seen by looking inward. There is a real person there. Your higher self but just as real a person as you.

The power of the unconscious is that it is the inversion of your will. God is your hidden reflection.

But what of evil? Who is the one looking through the eyes with the intent to cause harm? Is it the false self, the ego?

Cognisant said:

Give me an internally consistent definition of god THEN we can talk about whether or not it exists.

Zero and infinity are abstract concepts, they exists as abstractions.

The after life is called decomposition.

Click to expand...

decompositon is what happens to your body, afterlife is your existence after your death. does your existence cease with your body or does it continue.

I've brought this up before, sushi: People suggest, that it's impossible for us to know objectively about how money/the market works. They approach various theories of economy with pure agnosticism. It's apparently impossible for these individuals, to figure out the truth. Or else they don't want anyone to know the truth. It's funny that we can't, apparently, know, what we are doing. I mean, whoever. The banks, the market, i don't even know who is doing anything. Even tho much of what we do may be legal. You might think legal things are somewhat transparent, but apparently not. If we don't know, what we are doing, how the fuck are we going to prove anything at all? What do we even think we are doing, when we are trying to prove something? To whom? Is it possible, to convince anyone of anything, that is several hoops away from how their mind is already wired? Can we only convince ourselves, via proof work, via own experimentation and if so: how else can we convince us of something? By reading pubmed? Doesn't really matter to me, it sort of too big for me, not my job, i can only make my own experiments and speak my mind, the rest is the universe, being in big trouble, as always.

I wonder if we can truly prove anything. I just go with what seems to have the most evidence after thorough research and logical thought.

To original question: everything but "I". (feat. solipsism)

Everything is unknowable or unknown until it becomes known.

I will try to say this. What is, in this world, came from what is not. It was a kind of filling a void.
Genesis: The primary form of change. For it is more reasonable that what is should cause the coming-to-be of what is not, than that what is not should cause the being of what is. Now that which is being moved is, but that which is coming-to-be is not: hence also motion is prior to coming-to-be.

gilliatt said:

hence also motion is prior to coming-to-be.

Click to expand...

Matter existed in a static state. Later it moved. A seed program that initiated itself.

Motion, this circular motion, has no efficient cause. It seems that motion must have a 'reason why.' Why motion at all? Its excuse for being. Cannot find a beginning of motion, like time. 'Infinity'. Like an unending chain, neither beginning nor ending. Same with man, he beget a son, cannot go back to the first man, the beginning of begetting.

Well, what do you mean by "prove"? because generally these days it´s understood as "scientifically" proven, more precisely like a prove obtained through the scientific method.

In lacanian psychoanalysis we say there was an intervention because it had effects. You can see the effects of the intervention but otherwise can´t explain what exactly happend with what you did or what you said in session.

Also the concept of the Real gives another perspective on things you can´t prove. The Real can´t be said, or imagined, it´s impossible at it´s core, which doesn´t mean that it can´t happen, actually it happens to us all the time, it just can´t be represented, it´s like it´s what´s left of words, some negative viscous mass that builds reality. So you can´t prove the real, can´t touch it, can´t say it, can´t understand it, can´t manipulate it. We just try to border on it.
It´s like working with negative space, not with what IS but with what IS NOT
Makes any sense? xD