Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:51 pm The Negation of the Self is the Actualization of the Self.

1) All being, including the self, exists as constant.

2) Nothingness does not exist as nothingness, it is merely an observation of relation; hence nothingness is change.

3) The infinite inversion of being, through change under inversion as nothingness results in being as constant.

4) The negation of the self is the changing of the self as the destruction of the self resulting in a continual rebirth of the self.

5) The self is constant through all being as all being composed the self, and the inversion of the self is the inversion of the all.

6) The all manifests itself through nothingness under a process of continual change which negates nothingness through perpetual being.

7) The self is constant through its own denial as an expression of the all where the all is the self.

gaffo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:29 pm ?? above.

Self Knowledge = Wisdom

Wisdom = extraloplation to others/external world.

Selfshness is lack of self knowledge, which is narcissism and = foolishness.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:51 pm The Negation of the Self is the Actualization of the Self.

1) All being, including the self, exists as constant.

2) Nothingness does not exist as nothingness, it is merely an observation of relation; hence nothingness is change.

3) The infinite inversion of being, through change under inversion as nothingness results in being as constant.

4) The negation of the self is the changing of the self as the destruction of the self resulting in a continual rebirth of the self.

5) The self is constant through all being as all being composed the self, and the inversion of the self is the inversion of the all.

6) The all manifests itself through nothingness under a process of continual change which negates nothingness through perpetual being.

7) The self is constant through its own denial as an expression of the all where the all is the self.

• 1. The concept of the empirical self or empirical-I.
  2. The idea of the transcendental self or transcendental-I.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:51 pm The Negation of the Self is the Actualization of the Self.

1) All being, including the self, exists as constant.

2) Nothingness does not exist as nothingness, it is merely an observation of relation; hence nothingness is change.

3) The infinite inversion of being, through change under inversion as nothingness results in being as constant.

4) The negation of the self is the changing of the self as the destruction of the self resulting in a continual rebirth of the self.

5) The self is constant through all being as all being composed the self, and the inversion of the self is the inversion of the all.

6) The all manifests itself through nothingness under a process of continual change which negates nothingness through perpetual being.

7) The self is constant through its own denial as an expression of the all where the all is the self.

There are two epistemological aspects to the 'self', i.e.

• 1. The concept of the empirical self or empirical-I.
  2. The idea of the transcendental self or transcendental-I.

The empirical self or empirical-I is an empirical fact and to negate the empirical self would be stupid. This empirical self is very real because it can be easily empirically proven.

The empirical-I intuits, senses, thinks, reflects, reasons and also hallucinates.
It is only necessary to negate the hallucinated ideas by the empirical-I, when empirical-I hallucinates such an idea and claimed it to be an independent entity that can survives physical death and live eternally in various forms in heaven or elsewhere.

Your points 1-7 above are due to hallucinations by the empirical self via its brain due to terrible impulses arising from an existential crisis. This process of hallucination can be inferred from various real empirical evidences from those with mental cases, brain damage, drug takers, hallucinogens, etc.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:05 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:18 am There are two epistemological aspects to the 'self', i.e.

• 1. The concept of the empirical self or empirical-I.
  2. The idea of the transcendental self or transcendental-I.

The empirical self or empirical-I is an empirical fact and to negate the empirical self would be stupid. This empirical self is very real because it can be easily empirically proven.

The empirical-I intuits, senses, thinks, reflects, reasons and also hallucinates.
It is only necessary to negate the hallucinated ideas by the empirical-I, when empirical-I hallucinates such an idea and claimed it to be an independent entity that can survives physical death and live eternally in various forms in heaven or elsewhere.

Your points 1-7 above are due to hallucinations by the empirical self via its brain due to terrible impulses arising from an existential crisis. This process of hallucination can be inferred from various real empirical evidences from those with mental cases, brain damage, drug takers, hallucinogens, etc.

Actually due to the fallacy of equivocation we are not limited to just two epitemological aspects of the self, with this further being premised under a form of modal realism as many possible "selves" effectively only limited by possibility.

• 1. The Empirical self
  2. The contentious transcendental self.

This dualism of the empirical and transcendental (or abstract), while providing the necessary dualism for what constitutes the self is as a dualism and observation of both connection and seperation.

We may observe the abstract transcendental, through a platonic means, as directed towards the empirical, as premised in an aristotelean perspective, with the dual empirical perspective being directed towards the abstract transcendentaly. As duals, or extremes resulting from a form of opposition we may observe a form of seperatation in one respect with this continual alternation ad-infinitum observed a connection.

This connection, where the empirical and transcendental are both one and the same, effectively observes the directive of ea chother as connected where they are directed through themselves as one another with this multiplicity effectively being an approximation of unity (I probably said that statement a thousand times on this forum already). In these respects as connected, through a negative dimensional limit which in itself lacks direction or any quality whatsoever except through the axioms it connects, we observe a triadic component to the nature of the self.

This traidic component effectively is limit, observed in the connection and seperation of definitions of the self through opposition premised in the dualism of unity and multiplicity, and in these respects the "self" maintains a third neutral element of "both/and" as a limit with "neither/nor" as an absence of limit.

Hence this triadic neutrality one again cycles back to a postive and negative understanding of the self as limit and no-limit or a positive and negative neutrality. This neutrality as positive and negative dually exists through a form of replication where we have a "neutral neutral", "postive neutral neutral", "negative neutral neutral".

1) This aspect of the self as positive neutral neutral can reflect that the self effectively is just a point of unity that exists through a process of self-reflection as a perpetual mirroring which gives the self-structure. This can be argued as "Divine Spark", "Image of Divine Measurement", etc. ( with all these "definitions" being extensions of one another) observed in various philosophies and religions where one exists through a process of self-reflection or intradimensionality as directing oneself through oneself as oneself with this oneself, as premised in this 1 dimensional point as "self-evidence" so to speak. This of course being an extension of "The I Am" and "The All" reflected in a variety of philosophies and religions.

2) This aspect of the self as negative neutral neutral can reflect that the self is effectively absent of structure as a point of multiplicity that is effectively just "void" or "0 dimensionality" as a means of inversion. This can be argued as "Ego", "False Self", etc. (with all these "definitions" being inversions of one another through perpetual seperation) observed in various philosophies and religions where one exists through a process of relativity as directing oneself towards others and vice versa causing a seperation of identity, as premised in this 0 dimensional point as "self-evidence". This is an inversion of the "The I Am" and "The All" as "self-improvement/empowerment" and "the will to power" expressed in a variety of philosophies and religions.

3) This aspect of the self as neutral neutral observes the self as a limit conducive to a point of origin, further observed in the intuitive expressions of "originallity" and "genuineness" which exist as definitions of the self in many respects. This nature of the self as effectively a point of origin further expressions the extradimensional nature of the self as a projection through intelligence as a means of defining both the world and oneself. In a third respect this self-direction, and the reciprocal nature of the selfs, gives premise to a form of intadimensionality under a form of alternation or circularity where the self exists as the power to maintain its own structure. In these respects the self effectively exists as a means through limit, with man as means and man as measurer observed not just in various forms of religion and philosophy but an image or replication of divinity as God becomes anthropomorphic in various religions and philosophies as well.

In these respects, man exists as the synthesis of the abstract purity of unity and the empirical fog of void.

The negation of the self through the self observes the negation of the ego through ego where the ruthless qualities of the ego as observed in the coldness of true objectivity effectively cancels itself as the ego observes itself as nothing and ceases to exist hence giving a unity within oneself and the environment around the individual.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:37 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:05 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:18 am There are two epistemological aspects to the 'self', i.e.

• 1. The concept of the empirical self or empirical-I.
  2. The idea of the transcendental self or transcendental-I.

The empirical self or empirical-I is an empirical fact and to negate the empirical self would be stupid. This empirical self is very real because it can be easily empirically proven.

The empirical-I intuits, senses, thinks, reflects, reasons and also hallucinates.
It is only necessary to negate the hallucinated ideas by the empirical-I, when empirical-I hallucinates such an idea and claimed it to be an independent entity that can survives physical death and live eternally in various forms in heaven or elsewhere.

Your points 1-7 above are due to hallucinations by the empirical self via its brain due to terrible impulses arising from an existential crisis. This process of hallucination can be inferred from various real empirical evidences from those with mental cases, brain damage, drug takers, hallucinogens, etc.

Actually due to the fallacy of equivocation we are not limited to just two epitemological aspects of the self, with this further being premised under a form of modal realism as many possible "selves" effectively only limited by possibility.

Basically there are two main aspects of the self, i.e.

• 1. The Empirical self
  2. The contentious transcendental self.

Within the Empirical self, there is a hierarchy of selves which can be real or possible.
In this case where the self is claimed to be possible it must be empirically possible not transcendentally possible nor contradictory.

The transcendental self as claimed is also comprised of a hierarchy of selves culminating in the self merging with Absolute, ONE, GOD, and the likes. BUT as
I have argued the transcendental self is an illusion generated by the empirical brain and mind arising from terrible psychological desperation. I have given evidences in other posts to support this.

The main difference between the empirical self [and its hierarchy] is the empirical self can be justified and proven by empirical means.

The transcendental self cannot be justified and proven as real. The transcendental self and its ultimate can only be believed based on faith, i.e. no reason nor proofs.




Basically observes in one respect a generalization that is probabablistic under one interpretation, with this probabilism necessitating further variables effectively limiting one interpretation of the "I". In a separate respect, "basic" observes a form of origin or unity under the "I" as a synthetic quality of this dualism where the "I" must necessarily continue ad-infinitum to justify empiricism as a constant truth, while necessitating the abstract transcendent notion of infinity to justify empiricism.

If the transcendental truth is an illusion generated by the empirical brain, and this illusion in turn affects the brain we are left with a loop where the brain is deceiving itself and hence nothing can be known...not even your above statement. The problem occurs the the "loop" maintains itself as an abstract circular constant and a form of transcendental truth can be known under the infinite nature of limit.

The proof of empirical means, effectively observes a form of measurement through the senses in order to justify it as the senses not only must be connected or disconnected through limits but observe the limit of time through which they exists under a linear form with this "line" necessitating a form of transcendence beyond time due to its absolute and axiomatic nature to the senses. While the line may stem from the senses, the line still exists as an infinite limit in itself she observed on its own terms as a form of projected movement with this directed nature giving premise to movement as a limit in itself.

This continual change effectively negates itself as consistency or absoluteness which transcends empiricism.


The problem of proof lies not in its abstract quality of a framework, but effectively in its subjective nature where proof due to its non objective nature of convincing people is inherently chaotic as the subjective experience is not fully known due to its qualities of change. Proof, in these respects, is subject to change with all evidence fundamentally existing as frameworks where the limits provide the foundation of the axiom as a form of self evidence.

To argue generalities and empiricism, with the laws of empirical change by localizing specific groups of change into laws as frameworks, effectively is to argue a form of probabilism which leaves your argued as probabilistic hence inevitably not true under the course of time.

This dualism of the empirical and transcendental (or abstract), while providing the necessary dualism for what constitutes the self is as a dualism and observation of both connection and seperation.

We may observe the abstract transcendental, through a platonic means, as directed towards the empirical, as premised in an aristotelean perspective, with the dual empirical perspective being directed towards the abstract transcendentaly. As duals, or extremes resulting from a form of opposition we may observe a form of seperatation in one respect with this continual alternation ad-infinitum observed a connection.

This connection, where the empirical and transcendental are both one and the same, effectively observes the directive of ea chother as connected where they are directed through themselves as one another with this multiplicity effectively being an approximation of unity (I probably said that statement a thousand times on this forum already). In these respects as connected, through a negative dimensional limit which in itself lacks direction or any quality whatsoever except through the axioms it connects, we observe a triadic component to the nature of the self.

This traidic component effectively is limit, observed in the connection and seperation of definitions of the self through opposition premised in the dualism of unity and multiplicity, and in these respects the "self" maintains a third neutral element of "both/and" as a limit with "neither/nor" as an absence of limit.

Hence this triadic neutrality one again cycles back to a postive and negative understanding of the self as limit and no-limit or a positive and negative neutrality. This neutrality as positive and negative dually exists through a form of replication where we have a "neutral neutral", "postive neutral neutral", "negative neutral neutral".

1) This aspect of the self as positive neutral neutral can reflect that the self effectively is just a point of unity that exists through a process of self-reflection as a perpetual mirroring which gives the self-structure. This can be argued as "Divine Spark", "Image of Divine Measurement", etc. ( with all these "definitions" being extensions of one another) observed in various philosophies and religions where one exists through a process of self-reflection or intradimensionality as directing oneself through oneself as oneself with this oneself, as premised in this 1 dimensional point as "self-evidence" so to speak. This of course being an extension of "The I Am" and "The All" reflected in a variety of philosophies and religions.

2) This aspect of the self as negative neutral neutral can reflect that the self is effectively absent of structure as a point of multiplicity that is effectively just "void" or "0 dimensionality" as a means of inversion. This can be argued as "Ego", "False Self", etc. (with all these "definitions" being inversions of one another through perpetual seperation) observed in various philosophies and religions where one exists through a process of relativity as directing oneself towards others and vice versa causing a seperation of identity, as premised in this 0 dimensional point as "self-evidence". This is an inversion of the "The I Am" and "The All" as "self-improvement/empowerment" and "the will to power" expressed in a variety of philosophies and religions.

3) This aspect of the self as neutral neutral observes the self as a limit conducive to a point of origin, further observed in the intuitive expressions of "originallity" and "genuineness" which exist as definitions of the self in many respects. This nature of the self as effectively a point of origin further expressions the extradimensional nature of the self as a projection through intelligence as a means of defining both the world and oneself. In a third respect this self-direction, and the reciprocal nature of the selfs, gives premise to a form of intadimensionality under a form of alternation or circularity where the self exists as the power to maintain its own structure. In these respects the self effectively exists as a means through limit, with man as means and man as measurer observed not just in various forms of religion and philosophy but an image or replication of divinity as God becomes anthropomorphic in various religions and philosophies as well.

In these respects, man exists as the synthesis of the abstract purity of unity and the empirical fog of void.

The negation of the self through the self observes the negation of the ego through ego where the ruthless qualities of the ego as observed in the coldness of true objectivity effectively cancels itself as the ego observes itself as nothing and ceases to exist hence giving a unity within oneself and the environment around the individual.

Note your points above.

But note my points above.
The empirical world can be questioned but it is most credible as supported by Scientific justification and others.

Your sort of ultimate unity, oneness beyond the empirical is an illusion generated by the empirical self in a state of terrible psychological desperation.
One explanation why the empirical self idealized something ultimate beyond as the Absolute, God, and the likes is given here;

"No-I" NonDualism is a Defense Mechanism
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25259

It is this defense mechanism that shut your mind to it and is preventing you from seeing the truth.

Can you prove this point is wrong?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:38 am Basically observes in one respect a generalization that is probabablistic under one interpretation, with this probabilism necessitating further variables effectively limiting one interpretation of the "I". In a separate respect, "basic" observes a form of origin or unity under the "I" as a synthetic quality of this dualism where the "I" must necessarily continue ad-infinitum to justify empiricism as a constant truth, while necessitating the abstract transcendent notion of infinity to justify empiricism.

If the transcendental truth is an illusion generated by the empirical brain, and this illusion in turn affects the brain we are left with a loop where the brain is deceiving itself and hence nothing can be known...not even your above statement. The problem occurs the the "loop" maintains itself as an abstract circular constant and a form of transcendental truth can be known under the infinite nature of limit.

The proof of empirical means, effectively observes a form of measurement through the senses in order to justify it as the senses not only must be connected or disconnected through limits but observe the limit of time through which they exists under a linear form with this "line" necessitating a form of transcendence beyond time due to its absolute and axiomatic nature to the senses. While the line may stem from the senses, the line still exists as an infinite limit in itself she observed on its own terms as a form of projected movement with this directed nature giving premise to movement as a limit in itself.

This continual change effectively negates itself as consistency or absoluteness which transcends empiricism.


The problem of proof lies not in its abstract quality of a framework, but effectively in its subjective nature where proof due to its non objective nature of convincing people is inherently chaotic as the subjective experience is not fully known due to its qualities of change. Proof, in these respects, is subject to change with all evidence fundamentally existing as frameworks where the limits provide the foundation of the axiom as a form of self evidence.

To argue generalities and empiricism, with the laws of empirical change by localizing specific groups of change into laws as frameworks, effectively is to argue a form of probabilism which leaves your argued as probabilistic hence inevitably not true under the course of time.

If the transcendental truth is an illusion generated by the empirical brain, and this illusion in turn affects the brain we are left with a loop where the brain is deceiving itself and hence nothing can be known...not even your above statement.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:I am not arguing for monism or dualism but rather a Trinitarian nature to the universe where being is fundamentally triadic as positive, negative and neutral as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 with .99999 as all three one thirds existing fundamentally as both 1 and infinity as infinite one.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:19 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:38 am Basically observes in one respect a generalization that is probabablistic under one interpretation, with this probabilism necessitating further variables effectively limiting one interpretation of the "I". In a separate respect, "basic" observes a form of origin or unity under the "I" as a synthetic quality of this dualism where the "I" must necessarily continue ad-infinitum to justify empiricism as a constant truth, while necessitating the abstract transcendent notion of infinity to justify empiricism.

If the transcendental truth is an illusion generated by the empirical brain, and this illusion in turn affects the brain we are left with a loop where the brain is deceiving itself and hence nothing can be known...not even your above statement. The problem occurs the the "loop" maintains itself as an abstract circular constant and a form of transcendental truth can be known under the infinite nature of limit.

The proof of empirical means, effectively observes a form of measurement through the senses in order to justify it as the senses not only must be connected or disconnected through limits but observe the limit of time through which they exists under a linear form with this "line" necessitating a form of transcendence beyond time due to its absolute and axiomatic nature to the senses. While the line may stem from the senses, the line still exists as an infinite limit in itself she observed on its own terms as a form of projected movement with this directed nature giving premise to movement as a limit in itself.

This continual change effectively negates itself as consistency or absoluteness which transcends empiricism.


The problem of proof lies not in its abstract quality of a framework, but effectively in its subjective nature where proof due to its non objective nature of convincing people is inherently chaotic as the subjective experience is not fully known due to its qualities of change. Proof, in these respects, is subject to change with all evidence fundamentally existing as frameworks where the limits provide the foundation of the axiom as a form of self evidence.

To argue generalities and empiricism, with the laws of empirical change by localizing specific groups of change into laws as frameworks, effectively is to argue a form of probabilism which leaves your argued as probabilistic hence inevitably not true under the course of time.

If the transcendental truth is an illusion generated by the empirical brain, and this illusion in turn affects the brain we are left with a loop where the brain is deceiving itself and hence nothing can be known...not even your above statement.

Your worry seem to be that the empirical brain/mind cannot establish absolute certainty unless it is grounded to a transcendental Absolute.

Actually no...If the brain ceases to exist and the brain is a foundation of truth then truth ceases to exist.

What is critical with empirical truths is it must be backed by a serious continual critical thinking and that is works rationally & morally.
And how can a finite object have continuous critical thinking? And what is reason and morality in the face of critical thinking as everything can be reduced to contradiction.

What is the universally accepted means of critical thinking which in itself does not act divisively like religion?

Your statements of faith are irrational as they provide no universal axioms.




Humans do not need absolute certainty to ensure optimal survival.


Are you certain about this?


Rather what is sufficient is humans need knowledge that are empirically real, rational, morally guided and possible to facilitate the individual's survival optimally and therefrom the preservation of the human species.

Why is it sufficient considering there are factions with empiricism?



While empirical knowledge is never absolutely certain, it is effective enough to be used to prevent the human species from extinction to the extreme frontiers of enabling humans to possibility of deflecting a rogue meteorite from outer space heading in Earth's path and totally destroying it.

Empirical evidence of this, As the argument is rooted in abstractions of possibility?



Now what is the most effective use of establishing the ideology of the Absolute based on faith, i.e. not on reason nor proofs?
Can such an ideology and belief contribute to the overall well being of humankind and the possibility to deflect a rogue meteor coming towards Earth in say 500 years time?

Limit and no limit as universal axioms provide the foundation through the axioms of the point, line and circle being constants.



Actually the ideology of the Absolute on the individual level is pure selfishness and for own personal interests at the subconscious level.

Is this an absolute statement?




Where the ideology of the Absolute [aka] is imputed into organized religions, there is some moral benefits but that has limitations and loads of negatives/cons to humanity.

Actually the absolute is premised in philosophical reasoning as well, alomg with mathematics, geometry and logic as the roots of empirical definition.



The only rational answers to the emergence of the idea of an Absolute, Oneness, Unity, God, and the likes is because of the human brain/mind generating a defense mechanism [of various degrees] to soothe a terrible psychological existential crisis within the subconscious mind.

And where is the empirical evidence of this? Regardless, considering measurement is premised in unity and 1, at minimum, through the observation of variables as 1 or unity in themselves, all empiricism as a form of measurement is premised in this unity as materiality is the great unifier.




This point is a fact not ad hominen.
The facts are proven from research findings that confirm there is a continuum to it from the mildest to the most unified.

And what research is this? And what about research that says religion is necessary? How do you measure one form of empiricism relative to another without moving to abstractions as a constant form of measurement?



The most serious cases of depersonalization and its forms has enable some believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers and others.


What could be more personal than removing a person's dignity and right to live out of hate...cruelty and malice are not objective as objectively speaking cruelty and hate leads to an absence of structure when not kept in balance. True ruthlessness shows there is no point in being ruthless.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:28 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:I am not arguing for monism or dualism but rather a Trinitarian nature to the universe where being is fundamentally triadic as positive, negative and neutral as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 with .99999 as all three one thirds existing fundamentally as both 1 and infinity as infinite one.

Say what you like.
The ultimate implication of what you are postulating is reducible to monism, i.e. that 'infinite ONE' within a triad.

And the monism can be reduced to a triad eventually as well. Pure reduction, under atomist, leads to the munchaussen dilemma and contradiction as reduction being reduced further leads to a self cancelization in one respect and previously mentioned dilemma in a second.



Your drive towards nonDualism [monism or whatever Absolute, Unity, Infinite One, God, and the likes] is due to a psychological impulses within your empirical brain of depersonalization as a defense mechanism which can be explained in many empirical justifications and proofs.

Empirical evidence otherwise you come off as an irrational bigot.



Btw, do you agree the empirical brain/mind, empirical-I and empirical-you exist as empirically-real and can be justified and proven empirically?

And What is the standard of proof that everyone agrees on?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:19 am Humans do not need absolute certainty to ensure optimal survival.

Are you certain about this?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:I am not arguing for monism or dualism but rather a Trinitarian nature to the universe where being is fundamentally triadic as positive, negative and neutral as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 with .99999 as all three one thirds existing fundamentally as both 1 and infinity as infinite one.

Say what you like.
The ultimate implication of what you are postulating is reducible to monism, i.e. that 'infinite ONE' within a triad.

And the monism can be reduced to a triad eventually as well. Pure reduction, under atomist, leads to the munchaussen dilemma and contradiction as reduction being reduced further leads to a self cancelization in one respect and previously mentioned dilemma in a second.

Your drive towards nonDualism [monism or whatever Absolute, Unity, Infinite One, God, and the likes] is due to a psychological impulses within your empirical brain of depersonalization as a defense mechanism which can be explained in many empirical justifications and proofs.

Empirical evidence otherwise you come off as an irrational bigot.

Btw, do you agree the empirical brain/mind, empirical-I and empirical-you exist as empirically-real and can be justified and proven empirically?

And What is the standard of proof that everyone agrees on?