Hello! Inspired by Indian monks, I decided to practice controlling my body temperature. My initial theory was that visualizing some phenomenon, focusing on it, and making some bodily gesture would produce good results. Initial testing showed that I could not raise my general body temperature with hand gestures, but using visualization produces a good result in warming my hands. This Art is very interesting.

on a simpler term, i would call it logic nihilism. which states, that there is no absolute knowledge thus no absolute logic. And this includes this statement too. Through senses, we observe the world and gain the truth. From there, we derive pattern, forming into knowledge and ultimately logic, which we can use to deduce other truth. However, our senses have inherent limitations. Whatever object Infront you, how can you be sure if it's there? You can see it, smell it, touch it, hear it, and even taste it. But these senses are prone to mistakes and even, manipulation. How can you be sure if the apple you are seeing is not a head of someone else? When light can be distorted, and even other senses can manipulated through the use of electricity as our bodies handles information in such manner, how can you be sure? Of course no weird being would pay that much attention to us, at least from what we know but through above thought experiments, I hope I conveyed inherent limitation of our senses. More realistic limitation stems from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Which states we can never truly know the state of things as action of observing itself affects the result. Thus establishes absolute subjectivity of information, that no matter what we do, we can't know anything to an absolute certainty. From this we drives Logic nihilism as logic comes from knowledge. The reason why logics such as "if A equals B and B equals C, then A equals D" don't exist is because we never observed such phenomenon in the world. And because that observation is inherently flawed in some way or the other, there is no such thing as absolute logic. And that includes these statements too. As it was built on the knowledge of our own. So, there may be absolute truth out there, followed by absolute logic but there might also not be. We can't confirm neither of those two things. And we come back to square one. If even the logic that states "there is no absolute logic" is flawed, is there even point to all this.