Is it possible to know the truth and look beyond the boundaries of reality

Why is it Necessary to Understand the Boundaries of Cognition? ​

The point is that before answering questions like "Are we in a simulation?", "Is there life after death?" and similar ones, we first need to understand whether we can reach the boundaries of cognition, and if we can, whether it's fundamentally possible to cross this boundary and know what lies beyond our reality - the other side of the simulation, god, superintelligence, creator, or the architect of the universe. And this, by the way, is the truth in itself, the answers to these questions are absolute truth. And it is very closely related to understanding the boundaries of cognition, which is why I combined these topics into one.

Seeking truth is one of the goals of all humanity, it was, is, and will remain one of our most important goals. Although it may seem that we are bogged down in consumption and hedonism, the true goals have not disappeared. Moreover, such global questions as the origins of the world, whether there are boundaries to cognition and god are closely linked to free will, even if this doesn't seem obvious.

Questions arise such as: "If we were created by god, do we have free will?", "If we are in a simulation, how free are we?", "And if we are in reality, then what?", "Can we choose our own destiny and is there a limit to our freedom?"

In addition, understanding the grand scale of the world can potentially provide answers to our personal questions, the main one being: "What is the meaning of our life?" Essentially, we don't have a clear and concise answer to such a seemingly simple question.

Understanding the World is Self-Understanding ​

By understanding the world, you will better understand yourself, and by understanding yourself, you will inevitably want to live this life not as a useless talking piece of meat, but meaningfully, happily, and freely. Understanding the grand scale of the world is also necessary so we don't fall into the trap of false ideologies, to live a beautiful life as a free person, not a slave to ideologies.

False ideologies constantly try to drag you into their trap to make you pursue their goals instead of your own. Therefore, liberating yourself from them will already make your life happier because you won't waste your life and energy serving alien ideals, but instead can focus more on achieving your true life goals. We, as free and developed people, should study the world so that our understanding of it is as close to reality as possible, then we can make more accurate life decisions and avoid fatal mistakes. Understanding the world on a large scale helps to understand the smaller scale.

It's also important that understanding the big world will help you tame the ego that poisons many people's lives. Because you'll inevitably realize that the world was not created for you and that you are not unique - this is very sobering and puts many things in perspective.

What is Truth and Where to Look for It? ​

Truth lies at the boundaries of cognition, it can be perceived as the complete knowledge within the boundaries of cognition, while absolute truth lies beyond these boundaries. It would be good to understand whether truth is comprehensible at all or if it's just a speculative concept. Before understanding this, we first need to understand what truth itself is. To do this, we need to understand where it is located, and for that, we need to understand where we are - we live simultaneously in two worlds - the objective, physical world where our body and the entire physical world exist, and simultaneously in the subjective world, where our mind, soul, spirit, and all subjective sensations from pain and base pleasures to happiness and religious ecstasy are located. Moreover, according to some people, other entities like god, egregors, and various beings like angels and other higher or lower beings are also in the subjective world, but that's a separate story. In general, since two worlds exist, there are two truths, as truth is unique in each world.

Can We Know the Truth? ​

As you know, there are many philosophical, religious, esoteric, and mystical concepts about our world, and they all claim to be true, and their assertions can be diametrically opposite. But can this be? Which one is truly true? The answer may not please you, especially if you are an adherent of any one concept.

Let's start with the fact that objective truth can only exist in the objective world, which can be known through the scientific method. The scientific method, in turn, relies on experimental results. An experiment means we test hypotheses and give nature the opportunity to judge which of our hypotheses is true and which is false. That is, nature itself acts as the source of truth in the physical world. Accordingly, scientific knowledge is the truth in the objective world, and nothing else can claim objective truth. This means that all data about the physical world not obtained through the scientific method are presumptively unreliable until proven otherwise.

We know little about our physical world, but in general, we can easily imagine that we can comprehend the full range of data about our physical world from the smallest to the largest scale of the universe. Let's call this complete truth in the physical world. At present, we have no reason to believe that we have reached a limit and that complete truth is fundamentally unattainable, but the problem is that the closer we get to the limits of cognition, the more difficult it becomes to know, so near the limit, complexity could be so high that it would not allow us to approach it even in a million years.

But what lies beyond physical reality can be called absolute objective truth. Even a tiny piece of information from there would already provide answers to all our questions and reveal the whole truth. These are answers to: what was before the big bang, is there a boundary to the universe, do other universes exist, and what is beyond the smallest scale of the universe. Absolute truth in the physical world seems fundamentally unattainable. So far, there are no sufficient grounds to believe that we will ever be able to extract even a small particle of this information.

In the subjective world, it's even more complicated; there, even simply knowing the truth is extremely difficult, not to mention absolute truth, which seems completely unattainable.

Problems of Knowing Truth in the Subjective World ​

The main problem is that in the subjective world, there is no single source of truth, which in the objective world is nature itself, which judges experimental results, deciding what is true and what is not. Therefore, there is no single true concept describing the subjective world. This is an important thought - there is no source of truth, so there is no single true concept in the subjective world.

The second problem is that we are limited in the tools for knowing truth. Mainly these are logic (deductive method, logical conclusions from general to specific) and subjective experience available to all (induction, empirical method - logical conclusions based on observations and experience from which a general picture is built, that is, from specific to general).

These are wonderful tools, but they have serious problems. Even such a marvelous tool as logic can lead us astray because, relying solely on pure logic, one can create a logical system that describes anything, even something that doesn't exist. A bright example is flat-earthers - their logical system leads to the conclusion that the earth is flat. And this is despite more than 2,300 years since Aristotle provided proof that the earth is round.

There's also a problem with subjective experience - if we trust only subjective sensations, we can easily drift into mysticism and divine concepts. Moreover, the subjective world is very contradictory: the further phenomena are from our mind, the more contradictory they seem and the more they appear to have opposite meanings simultaneously. Because the further the level of the subjective world is from us, the less influence of time and space, so god/superintelligence or absolute essence can be simultaneously always and never (because there is no time), everywhere and nowhere (because there is no space), everything and nothing (it is a great absolute and simultaneously a great nothing). Logic breaks down here. And if we try to resolve these contradictions with logic, it takes us away from the truth.

Due to these problems, we have an incredible number of quite dubious teachings and cults. But even if the author of the concept has the most benevolent goals, they will still have to partially rely on their subjective experience, intuition, and worldview. Unfortunately, it is impossible to create concepts describing subjective truth without this. Because subjective truth is based on data obtained from the subjective world, mainly through subjective sensations, and the task of extracting this data from the subjective world so that it does not lose its truth is very difficult, on the verge of impossible. But the main thing is to have minimal intuition and maximum logic and facts.

Therefore, such concepts are strongly tied to the author. The author must realize that they are relying only on subjective experience available to all, and not on some unique experience available only to them or another person who told them about it (like Carlos Castaneda with his Don Juan).

Moreover, the author should consider subjective experience and sensations not as a source of knowledge, not as absolute knowledge that is not subject to analysis, but as facts operated by the logical system. And only philosophers can do this, so essentially we cannot seriously consider any concepts except philosophical ones.

We can absolutely say that subjective experience available only to the chosen ones (prophets, seers, and the like) we cannot consider, otherwise we would have to simply believe them at their word. Therefore, we have to ignore messages from people about communicating with god and similar miracles.

Here one can easily draw an analogy with psychics: there are many prizes ready to pay a large sum of money to people who demonstrate any paranormal abilities, but in more than 100 years of observations, not a single prize has been paid, although many charlatans claiming supernatural abilities have come to these laboratories. Therefore, we can assert with certainty that such people do not exist and most likely never existed, they are either liars or sincerely believed in abilities they did not have. Drawing a parallel with psychics, we can quite assume that likewise, there are no people who had supernatural subjective experience.

There are too many false reports from people claiming they have communicated with god, had astral flights to other worlds, and similar experiences. Here you need to understand that, first, people tend to lie for various reasons, and second, it is impossible to verify their reports.

Another important problem is that modern religions have established censorship that prohibits widely publicizing information contradicting the dogmas of religious organizations, such as criticism of miracles in Islam and Christianity. Complaints will be filed against those who dare to speak on these topics, and they will be harassed, with information in social networks and search engines being pessimized and not receiving views. The problem is that religious people claim to know the truth, but we are forbidden to challenge it. This introduces a lot of confusion into people's minds and severely distorts reality in their consciousness.

Esoteric concepts are also difficult to study, primarily due to the magical thinking of esoteric text and video authors. It is especially difficult to watch videos with minimal useful information and an absence of logical systems, causal relationships, and facts. The situation is somewhat better in esoteric books, but nevertheless, due to the authors' belief that they receive information from the cosmos in a ready-made form, they do not build these concepts on logic and do not try to prove what they say, so the reader must simply believe what the author is presenting.

Another problem with esoteric concepts is that the reader must accept everything at once: that there are universal laws (non-physical), subtle energies, that there are larvae sucking out energy, that there are other beings from higher worlds who teach us, that esoteric book authors receive information from the cosmos or from higher beings. The reader must also ignore the more than questionable reputation of some authors, such as Osho (who created a sect during his lifetime) or Elena Blavatsky (who was repeatedly caught in deception).

If you simply remove the idea of subtle energies, for example, all the concepts collapse. They are not based on anything, they lack logic, but they have authority - the source of knowledge is the universe or a super-entity. In esoteric teachings, readers are invited to simply take the author's statements on faith and ask fewer questions, because everything is already written, just read and accept. And the esotericists themselves treat people who do not share their concepts with chauvinism, as if you are just a lost sheep who has gone somewhere else in search of truth, incomprehensibly why you are digging into philosophy when everything is already written in esoteric books.

Worse, most esoteric texts contain manipulations. Not always do these manipulations lead to some New Age sect, but nevertheless the goal of these manipulations is to drag people into their egregore, hiding their intentions, which I consider completely unacceptable.

But nevertheless, there is esoteric philosophy in esotericism, which I try to extract from esoteric texts. It is very difficult, but I try 😁. It seems to me that under mountains of esoteric husks, one can find a philosophical grain of truth - not only because modern esotericism is partly based on Hinduism and thus inherits its philosophy, but also because modern esoteric concepts contain several ideas that, in my opinion, are quite good.

The Problem of the Impossibility of Extracting Truth from the Subjective World ​

The main problem is that even if we assume that some external world exists (astral or the other side of the simulation), it is actually impossible to extract information from it. That is, not by building logical concepts, but directly - to receive information from god, from higher beings, in visions and through any other means.

But there is one method that seems very promising to many - psychedelic trips. Psychonauts claim that they fly to the otherworldly world after taking appropriate substances. But the data of psychonauts varies from person to person and strongly depends on the substance being taken and even the dosage. It's strange that they receive different subjective experiences depending on different doses and substances - this makes research difficult.

But even this is not the main problem. The fundamental issue is that psychonauts cannot bring information from the "other world" into this world. They feel like they've learned something special during a trip, but when they sober up, they cannot express in words what they've learned. Most likely, this is simply a disruption of brain function by psychoactive substances - a brain area is involved that causes such subjective sensations. Many people have been involved in psychonautics, but at present, absolutely no special knowledge has been brought from there by any person.

The same problem exists with lucid dreams and deep meditations during which people allegedly receive astral experience. They have not extracted any special data from there.

People who allegedly know subjective experience often present information in a way that no one else can verify. They may claim that everyone has their own subjective experience, that you cannot know their experience, but nevertheless, you must believe that their experience is true for everyone - this is illogical, to say the least.

This applies to all prophets, seers, and any messages from people who supposedly went beyond our reality. Not a single one of them throughout human history has extracted any special information about our world. If this were the case, it would be very noticeable, for example, if the Maya Indians knew about the quantum world, or if God gave Moses information about the structure of the universe, black holes, and the like, instead of ten commandments that are obvious anyway. But nothing like that exists 🤷‍♂️.

Perhaps the simplest test that no seers currently exist is the realization that none of them bought bitcoin when it cost less than a dollar, just as no person who supposedly extracted special knowledge about our world became a great scientist or a great philosopher. People simply want to believe that they can get knowledge from above without working, but do not want to understand that scientists move towards their goals in small steps, spending years in work and experiments, just as philosophers spend their entire lives in reflection and labor, digging into the depths of logic and consciousness.

The most striking example of such thinking is the myth that the Russian chemist Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev received his periodic table in a dream. This is not true. In fact, he worked on it for 20 years, and after publication, he continued to refine it, which means it did not come to him in a finished form in a dream.

What to Do If Truth Cannot Be Known? ​

Thus, truth in the objective world is known by science, and in the subjective world - by philosophy, which is like a science for the subjective world. At present, we cannot assert that truth in the objective world is unattainable. But in the subjective world, as I said earlier, there are concerns that truth is fundamentally unattainable. But it's not all that bad. Surprisingly, because we do not know the truth, we do not find ourselves in a vacuum or a suspended state. The very answer that we do not know the truth is not a bad answer; moreover, an entire philosophical concept is based on this - agnosticism.

We simply cannot live without concepts; this is how our thinking is structured - it always operates with some concepts. This means that we cannot essentially find ourselves in a philosophical vacuum.

If it seemed to you that you are outside of any concepts, then either you have just fallen out of the system or conducted some spiritual or psychedelic practice. It's a wonderful feeling of freedom, but the feeling of "exiting the matrix" does not last long. But if it continues to seem to you that you are outside of any concepts, then you simply are not aware of which concept you have come to or which egregore you have fallen into.

So, for maximalists and lovers of simplifying everything, the disappointing conclusion is: since no true subjective concept exists, you need to choose one that is at least not false, maximally logical, and most plausible according to your subjective feelings. Or mix the most promising concepts. This, by the way, is free will. Free will in the subjective world is a conscious choice of one's concepts.

And the only way to know truth in the subjective world is to build philosophical concepts, trying to get closer to the truth. By the way, even the very thought: "Does truth exist or not?" is already two full-fledged philosophical concepts, and both cannot be confirmed or refuted. This is how concepts are born 😉.

I believe that philosophy is undeservedly forgotten in our time. Our entire world and our thinking are permeated with philosophy, but for some reason, modern people's attitude towards philosophy is something useless and meaningless.

How to Choose the Best Concept ​

The best concepts grant you freedom and the opportunity to achieve your life goals, and the concept should be flexible, open to discourse, have broad boundaries, describe reality well, be based on our biology, and take into account people's striving for spiritual and moral rebirth (that is, to complete the evolutionary transition from an animal to a human in the best sense of that word).

But first, we need to filter out false concepts. You might ask: "but how to understand which are false?". It's simple: we need to conduct an analysis and create criteria for evaluating the falsity of concepts. First, we collect the most significant concepts, then analyze them, identify false characteristics, and assign weight depending on how many false characteristics are in a specific concept. The most false concepts, especially those with intentional manipulations, can be completely crossed out.

False Characteristics ​

• Illogical concepts can be easily filtered out. For many, it's not obvious that logic is a tool for understanding the subjective world, so philosophical concepts are very, even extremely logical, in contrast to, for example, religious and mystical ones
• The most illogical concepts are conspiracy theories, moreover, they are full of various manipulations and outright lies. For example, the "alternative history" theory claims that we supposedly appeared in an already ready-made world quite recently. Despite the theory seeming interesting, it entirely consists of manipulations and sophistry. The flat earth theory is built on ignoring some facts and giving excessive importance to other facts, which are turned in the desired light. Flat-earthers claim that supposedly behind the ice wall in Antarctica, there is an exit to the real world, and the world we live in was created with not-good intentions, it is flat and under a dome with stars drawn on it, and scientists have conspired to deceive us by providing false photographs from space. A funny fact: some conspiracy theorists popular in the media space conducted experiments and convinced themselves that the earth is round, after which they reported this to their colleagues, but they were not believed; other conspiracy theorists accused those experimenters of selling out to scientists 😁
• Concepts based on authoritative sources such as holy books or authoritative people. The message of such concepts is: if the source is authoritative, it cannot speak lies
• Concepts based on faith instead of knowledge. The essence is: you should just believe, not seek truth in experiments
• Based on describing a unique subjective experience of a separate person that cannot be verified. For example, someone claims that they spoke with God - this cannot be checked, but you are told that you must believe them at their word
• Therefore, religious concepts can be boldly crossed out. But don't forget to extract philosophy from them, it is certainly there, since previously, before the invention of book printing, religion served as a carrier of philosophy, culture, and even some knowledge about the world
• If information came from space. They claim this to remove responsibility from the author and increase the authority of the source
• If a non-easily accessible subjective experience is described that cannot be verified by any other person. Or if it is claimed that for each person, their subjective experience is different, or even worse, each person has their own objective world. It is obvious that these concepts cannot be verified at all, and it is also obvious that they contain a clear manipulation. Such concepts are often created intentionally; they are made so that they cannot be refuted, but at the same time look convincing, which helps to involve people in these ideologies. For example, one such concept claims that free will does not exist, that whatever we do was already chosen by someone in advance, but then immediately a question arises - why does such a world or creator need beings who think about free will, moreover, what is the point of a world where everything is chosen in advance? Wouldn't it be simpler to create a world without living beings at all? Don't even look for logic. But nevertheless, in such concepts, there is even a bit of practical meaning; they sober us up so that we do not get too fixated on authoritative concepts. In general, since we cannot verify a non-easily accessible subjective experience, we cannot seriously consider these concepts, simply placing them in our collection of interesting but not perspective concepts
• Since mysticism and esotericism are mostly built on unverifiable subjective experience, they should not be taken too seriously, but it is definitely worth extracting philosophy from them
• We filter out concepts that do not take into account our nature, ignore or distort our biology and evolution. Usually, these are various cults and religious concepts that claim that the body is something bad, low, and a cell created for the soul's suffering. Doesn't it seem to you that the human body is such a complex cell, so complex that we still cannot fully comprehend it, too intricate for the simple function of a cell? And in general, besides suffering, we can also feel happiness
• We filter out concepts that do not take into account our spirituality, morality, and striving for self-development, towards a better version of a human, towards spiritual rebirth, rejection of our animal essence and ego. That is, we can filter out hedonism (life for base pleasures), as well as the idea that the world is created exclusively for you, that you are already perfect and do not need self-development, which is very popular among women and is a crucial part of the female parasitic philosophy currently affecting almost all women. The essence of the female philosophy is that the world is created for women, and for each of them, and men are slaves created to serve women
• We filter out concepts that do not take into account modern society and the current level of human development. For example, primitivism. It seems close to nature, calling us to return to our roots and live like ancient people in caves in the forest without asking unnecessary questions. But in reality, primitivism is unnatural; it ignores our striving for knowledge and development. In principle, any concepts that demonize science, technology, and progress can be easily crossed out, in my opinion, this is an obvious marker of the ideology's falsity
• We filter out ideologies based on goal substitution. In my view, they are the most dangerous. First and foremost, these are sects where the adept must serve the leader of this ideology, where under the guise of serving God and supposedly good deeds, the main boss gets fat, with a harem of virgins and a pile of wealth. But there are also other ideologies where there are no obvious bosses, and the benefit is received by the egregore (swarm consciousness). All such ideologies are actually evil; they are based on ego and manipulatively substitute the goals of the adepts with their own. Large egregores drain energy and act destructively on society, achieving their evil goals. The most aggressive, most destructive, and largest egregore is, of course, feminism. In terms of destructiveness, it is not just not inferior to Nazism but potentially exceeds it many times over; moreover, it is also a Nazi ideology because feminism is not only hatred towards an entire half of humanity but also destroys nations by race, primarily destroying the white race by white women refusing to give birth and substituting their behavioral model: they choose a promiscuous lifestyle instead of a family-oriented one. Feminism also enslaves men so that they work for the easy and carefree life of women (as Nazis forced Jews to work). One of the most plausible conspiracy theories states that Jews, by pouring huge amounts of money into feminism through the Soros Foundation and others in the 21st century, are thus taking revenge on whites for the Holocaust in the 20th century, trying to reduce the white race's population by white women's refusal to give birth, as well as refusing to give birth to white men, preferring any other races, and of course mixing white countries with migrants, taking power from indigenous white peoples in their own countries. This is almost the only conspiracy theory that has real grounds and can be easily confirmed by looking at society - white heterosexual men are the most oppressed class, and all other classes are privileged. If you say something bad about blacks or Jews, you will be accused of racism and anti-Semitism, but at the same time, it is allowed to mock, humiliate, and insult whites, especially white heterosexual men, meaning racism against whites is not only allowed but encouraged. To understand the power of feminism - it affects not only almost all women but also many men, primarily whites, who are fighting for their own enslavement and deprivation of rights
• All such ideologies present their answer about what truth is and how the world is arranged. In sects, you can often find the idea that this world of suffering will soon have a great judgment, or some apocalypse, or simply after death, the adepts who lured other people into the sect will receive happiness, and meanwhile, they can suffer, live in poverty for the boss's luxurious life. Well, in feminism, there is its own idea based on social Darwinism; they believe that men are an evolutionary mistake and the root of all evil in the world, and they must be destroyed so that the world becomes a quiet and beautiful place

We have examined many false ideas and concepts, and you will certainly ask: "What remains then?" Correctly - philosophy, nothing more. Only philosophical concepts have the right to be considered for understanding truth and answering whether the boundaries of knowledge exist. Everything else we either throw away, or consider only as a cultural object, or simply extract philosophy and analyze it separately. But even with philosophy, not everything is smooth, because among philosophical concepts, there are many quite dubious and even very destructive ones, because even Nazism and even feminism have their philosophy.

But, interestingly, theological concepts about causality, the handmade nature of the world, and fine-tuning cannot be disproved so easily, so they also remain until they are refuted. There are no sufficient refutations that the world was not created intentionally and that an absolute entity - a god or an entity that launched the simulation - does not exist. Therefore, creationism must be considered on par with other concepts, no matter how much someone would like to cross it out. From a philosophical point of view, if we set aside all the nonsense generated by many modern creationists, creationism itself remains a full-fledged theory.

Basic Concepts I (Ivan K) Accept ​

I have already done a lot of work and analyzed many concepts, and based on some of them, I will narrate. It is important to indicate from what position I am speaking. You should not be repelled by the fact that I am trying to find the truth and at the same time do not reject all concepts simultaneously, like nihilists (those who deny everything), but the trick is that nihilism is also a concept. And we cannot think outside of concepts, as we have already found out.

I belong to the agnostics, which means that the boundaries of knowledge exist and it is impossible to know what is beyond them and especially to know God (if he exists). But I am a more flexible agnostic - I claim that it is impossible to look beyond the boundaries of knowledge until the contrary is proven. That is, I am ready to become both an atheist and a theist if it is proven that God either definitely exists or definitely does not exist.

I am also a dualist, meaning I believe that the objective and subjective worlds are two different worlds not directly connected to each other, so they must be studied by different methods. There are no reasons to believe that both of these worlds have a single primary cause and originated from some unified center. For dualists, it is quite normal that two answers can exist simultaneously to the question of the meaning of life, what happens after death, and the existence of God.

The next concept I accept is realism, which means that things exist by themselves, even if we do not observe them. In comparison, idealists believe that the material world is either derived from consciousness or does not exist independently of it. That is, the world exists as long as an observer exists - I fundamentally disagree with this.

Regarding the objective world, I am definitely a materialist. I consider the scientific method the only complete way of knowing objective truth, and we are just little monkeys 🙉. But unlike materialists, I do not deny the subjective world; I examine it from the perspective of various philosophical concepts, combining them into my own concept.

From esoteric philosophy, I take the concepts of soul, spirit, egregores, and the energy-information ocean. Egregores can be found under the name pendulums in Transurfing Reality, but I call them systems, adding more properties to them, primarily the ability to manipulate people's consciousness. A more scientific concept close to egregores is swarm consciousness.

I do not take the concept of subtle energies from esotericism because even if they exist, they most likely do not affect anything, as I believe there is no direct interaction between the subjective and objective worlds.

The energy-information ocean created by our energy-information bodies, I consider the answer to the question of whether the subjective world exists independently of us or not. I believe that most phenomena from the subjective world exist independently of one individual but will disappear if the last thinking being in the universe disappears (although for now, we can only talk about earthlings).

Materialism and Idealism ​

By the way, materialism is also a concept; do not perceive it as the ultimate truth. Materialists think they are reasoning outside any systems, but in reality, they simply do not notice it. This is typical of people under the influence of an ideology, to whom it seems that their ideas are absolutely true and natural, and all other ideas are false and abnormal.

We are grateful to materialism for its fruits; it has given humanity a lot. But I believe that materialism is applicable only to the objective world, moreover, it is applicable better than any other concepts, but for the subjective world, it is not suitable at all, as materialism denies it, so other concepts are needed for the subjective world.

The logic of materialism is simple - if there is nothing to rely on in the subjective world and objective experiments cannot be conducted, it is easier to deny it and declare that it does not exist.

On the other hand, many idealistic concepts, especially spiritual ones, greatly diminish the significance of the material world and consider it a mere pitiful embodiment of the lower world, a world of suffering, while their native world is a high, subtle world. I also do not accept such an approach; as a dualist, I believe that both worlds exist simultaneously and neither originates from the other.

Therefore, I propose leaving materialism for objective reality and looking for something else for the subjective realm.

What Cannot Be Known ​

Let's now talk more specifically about what can be known and what cannot. Let's start with what we most likely will never be able to know:

• Agnostics believe that it is impossible to know what is beyond the physical and subjective worlds
• Honestly, we are not even particularly sure if there is a clear boundary of knowledge. Most likely, the boundary can be considered the level of knowledge for which it is impossible to create tools of cognition or which would require too much time, say a million years
• In the physical world, we most likely cannot know what was before the universe's origin and what is beyond its boundaries, if it is not infinite
• Perhaps we cannot know the smallest scale of the world; perhaps the quantum world is not fully knowable
• We are unlikely to find an answer to why our universe is exactly like this, with precisely these physical laws and no others, moreover, why life appeared in it, as it seems illogical and meaningless on a universal scale
• There are serious doubts that we will ever be able to find out if there is life after death and before birth. So far, there is not a single reliable evidence of the afterlife
• Are we in a simulation? Philosophers agree that it is impossible to know, while being in a simulation, that you are in a simulation
• In the subjective world, we cannot know God (if he exists). Most likely, this is definite
• Does an astral world exist, which can supposedly be accessed in lucid dreams, meditations, and psychedelic trips? Many people claim they have been in that world, but they have not provided any reliable evidence

What Can Be Known ​

And now a short answer to the question of what can be known. We can know everything that is within the boundaries of knowledge and does not cross the extreme points.

Namely:

• In the objective world, this is almost the smallest and almost the largest scale of the universe up to the limit of knowability
• And in the subjective world, we can explore our subjective sensations, partially our spirit, and understand our life's meaning
• We can also somewhat know the subjective world itself, particularly egregores and the energy-information ocean
• The most familiar and understandable subtle world to us is the mental world. It is the world of thoughts, knowledge, concepts, and the essence of things where our mind resides

We definitely need to continue trying to approach subjective truth as much as possible. As we found out earlier, not all concepts honestly strive for truth, which means a coordinate system is formed where false and non-false concepts exist. This means we can move in this coordinate system from false concepts to at least non-false ones and combine the best concepts, trying to approach the truth.

What Can Be Stated Definitively ​

As you understand, in such matters, it is very difficult to assert something with certainty, otherwise, we risk accidentally filtering out promising ideas or diving headlong into authoritative ideas that may not be true, ignoring everything else. But still, there are things we can affirm firmly and clearly.

• It is absolutely certain that none of the currently living people and almost certainly none of those who have ever lived on earth before possessed information about what is beyond objective reality, at least what is unknown to modern science. Such people on earth at the moment do not exist, firmly and clearly. And there are no reasons to believe that they ever lived
• Despite numerous testimonies from people who supposedly looked beyond the subjective world's boundaries, we cannot call any of them true, as they had a unique experience that cannot be verified, so in general, we can assert that such people do not exist and most likely never existed
• Regarding prophets of the past, since they did not receive any special information about the physical world, we can easily assume that they did not possess any special information about the subjective world either. Almost certainly, we can assert that prophets are either liars or someone intentionally gave them an undeserved prophet status. As I have already said, one of the most revered prophets in the world, Moses, with his tablets of ten commandments with very obvious rules, supposedly received from God, looks extremely unconvincing. If he had told about how the universe is arranged, or at least how to build a Large Hadron Collider, it would be a different conversation
• Even if God exists, it absolutely does not affect our life in any way, as it is an infinitely distant entity from our understanding. Therefore, we can assert quite definitively that there is absolutely no point in praying to God, asking him for something, performing rituals, and generally introducing religion into one's life. But this does not negate spiritual development because this goal is inherent in us and is part of our essence, regardless of God's existence, no matter how strange it sounds
• We will almost certainly be unable to know that we are in a simulation from within the simulation until this information is transmitted to us from outside by entities that launched the simulation

Philosophy of Impossibility of Knowing ​

From all of this emerges an interesting philosophy, which is not quite agnosticism since it is associated with knowing God, and not quite skepticism, as skepticism doubts the very fact of the existence of reliable knowledge. The essence of this philosophy I would define as: the inevitability of the need for knowledge under the conditions of seemingly impossible knowledge.

We definitely do not know whether absolute truth is knowable or not, but what is within the boundaries of knowledge we can definitely know, and since we can, we must do so. It seems stupid to have so much that is unknown while folding our hands and not trying to understand it. This is our philosophical goal and part of our human nature, which sets us a vector of development. It is somehow wrong to go against one's essence; our brain is structured so that if something is unknown, we will not rest until we know it.

Regarding the objective world, as I have already said, it is potentially knowable within the boundaries of knowledge, so this is our goal, to which we must strive.

But even though the subjective truth seems unattainable or may not exist at all, nevertheless in the subjective world we are not in a vacuum; there are definitely things that should be known, and we even have some tools of cognition.

An important thought: the absence of answers is not emptiness; it is also a state of a variable. Like in programming with dynamically typed languages, a variable containing a Boolean value: true or false, can also have an undefined value. Therefore, the answer "I don't know" is not meaningless and provides a basis for constructing various concepts. So agnostics and atheists are not actually suspended in the air and not lost in the coordinate system as it might seem.

Once again about simulation: if we cannot know that we are in a simulation, is there any point in worrying about it? Even if we are in a simulation, it is in any case our reality, and there is no other for us. I recommend thinking about this thought independently.

And another important thought regarding God - if we cannot know God because he is beyond the extreme points of knowledge, how important is he? Even if he exists. Can a god, being infinitely far from us, somehow influence our life in response to our prayers, somehow intervene in the life of a tiny bug in this vast universe? The answer is almost certainly no.

Practical Side of Understanding the Boundaries of Knowledge ​

Understanding the boundaries of knowledge gives us a philosophical foundation, as well as accepting the impossibility of knowing some things. But primarily, we can easily filter out false concepts and not clutter our heads with nonsense - all people and theories that claim to definitely know what is beyond the extreme points of the universe and have not provided reliable data are definitely not true and are even lying. There are absolutely no proofs of the existence of magic, mysticism, supernatural abilities, aliens, clairvoyance, afterlife, and the like. This heap of knowledge can simply be thrown in the trash and clean out one's head.

As we found out earlier, only philosophy can give us answers about the subjective world, including religious and esoteric philosophy, and only in a purified form. Everything else can only be studied as a cultural object but not taken on faith.

The lack of knowledge about the world is not a vacuum; do not try to fill it with all sorts of nonsense. Our brain is structured in such a way that it really dislikes incompleteness and tries to fill it even by inventing missing fragments of information. But accept this incompleteness, accept that we do not know and possibly will never know some facts; this is in any case better than devoting life to a false ideology. It is better to know that humanity does not have knowledge on a particular issue than to believe in all sorts of mysticism.

The next thought I want to convey: if we do not know what will happen after death, it makes sense to focus on life and build a philosophy of life, try to find at least some meaning in it. Because if it turns out that there was a meaning and we did not find it, it will be a pity at the end of life. It will also be a pity if a person believed all their life that death is a transition to a better world and therefore did not make efforts to achieve their goals in life, and when death came, everything simply ended and consciousness went into non-existence.

Despite the seemingly meaningless nature of our life, it is actually not so meaningless. Even if we cannot comprehend the meaning of human existence, we can at least understand our personal life's meaning, and that is not so bad.

We, humanity, have already made good progress in studying the objective world; I recommend that you also study it, at least superficially, it is very interesting and greatly expands thinking. It is erudition that expands thinking, not all those meditations and substances.

But even those incomplete knowledge of the subjective world is already enough to find some guidelines - at least this is a reward system for fulfilling biological, social, and higher survival programs, and we also have spiritual goals, and if we dig deeper, we can find even more guidelines.

Conclusion ​

So, we have found out what the boundaries of knowledge are and whether truth exists, as well as that we can only reason about this within the framework of some philosophy. In particular, the most basic concepts from which I speak are agnosticism and dualism. From the point of view of agnosticism, God/creator/entity that launched the simulation (if they exist) are not knowable in principle. And from the point of view of dualism, we exist simultaneously in two worlds that do not have direct interaction with each other.

Absolute truth is located beyond the boundaries of knowledge of both the objective and subjective worlds, and each world has its own. We can confidently assert that no one on earth knows or knew this truth. There are no possibilities to verify the statements of those people who supposedly communicated with God and learned something, so we cannot trust them.

But the most amazing thing is that the fact that we do not have answers to important questions for us does not mean that we are suspended in a vacuum. The impossibility of knowing not only provides a philosophical foundation but also generates its own philosophy of the impossibility of knowing. Moreover, there is practical benefit in this. First, we can clear our heads from a pile of useless and unreliable information. And secondly, we can better understand our personal meaning of life, relying on what is currently known to humanity, on the goals of humanity and our personal goals. Even just trying to know what we can reach, at least in general terms, is already a good goal and a path of self-knowledge through world knowledge.

We can assert that truth in the objective world within the boundaries of our knowledge is potentially knowable, but the more we know, the more difficult it becomes. And truth in the subjective world is very difficult to know because we can barely see and feel that world, moreover, there is no source of truth in it, which in the objective world is nature.

Will humanity ever know absolute truth or not, we do not know and cannot even make assumptions about this. Most likely, unless this information is transferred to us from the outside, we will hardly know the truth ourselves. But at the same time, there is no certainty that this "outside" exists.

But there is also good news - free will in our seemingly meaningless world definitely exists, with which I congratulate you! It is expressed in the choice of philosophical concepts, which largely shapes our destiny. And philosophy permeates all our human existence from an individual to all of humanity as a whole, so let's return it to its deserved recognition and make philosophy great again!