Dhiresh

Laws, reason, axioms, consistency, structure, certainty, definition. They are perceived to basically govern everything around. Well, how about lawlessness/no-law(s), reasonlesness/no-reason(s), no axiom(s), no consistency, no structure, no certainty, no definition/indefinition/indefiception/infidefiception? Why do we like certainties, answers, or some sort of structure? Why am I asking this question? Why am I questioning my questioning? Why am I questioning me questioning my questioning? If you consider the idea of GOD. What is GOD? GOD is Everything, GOD is Nothing. GOD is the collection of all existence or possibilities. Call it Universe, or multi-verse, or everything, everything including nothing, universal set or Absolute, ultimate and such. I propose that this all might have one thing as a reason: Permanent Existence or Existence of/with Permanence. But, the ultimate reason to this all is no reason at all: Any existence/state/statement, i.e. everything or anything, at one level or...

  ON THE NATURE OF NATURE We have been discussing about the design and developing new and clearer theories that we think can precisely define the nature of nature. We have been trying to explain her grand creation on the basis of the observations or events that take place around us. We are doing so from the beginning of our human history. We observe, explain, predict and test. The explanation sometime and in some condition agrees and sometime in some other condition disagrees or fails. But still we are confident that we can describe nature of nature in a way that is certain by making a realization that our views still lack something. Today we are known about many subjects of nature but still we believe there is a perfect model that perfectly explains the design of nature. Is keeping such belief a mistake? Nature on the fundamental level has no law. Nature demands not to act in any certain perfect way or pattern. There is no any limitation to how nature can act. Nature is absolutely...

What is Everything? Let me define everything as such: Everything is that which ‘exists’. It is that which is ‘real’. It is the ‘state’. Existence is experience, it is measure, it is ‘state’. So, for state A, A exists. For state B, state B exists, and so on. Now, does state B and/or state C and/or any state ‘not A’, exist for A? The answer is that for any state A, the state, any state, ‘not A’ or ‘A complement’, is absolutely undefined. One cannot say that “B exists for A”, one cannot say “B doesn’t exist for A”. So for state A, state A is everything, it is the universe for itself. For state B, state B is everything/universe, and so on. So, ‘everything’ is not absolute, it’s relative. Now, of course, for state A, state A is absolute, it is ‘absolute everything’ for itself. For B, B is ‘absolute everything’, and so on. The thing that needs to pointed out is that, any state is quantized. State is a quantized entity. It cannot be reduced to any smaller parts. It is the smallest entity, and...

Nothing was/is immortal. But it didn’t and couldn’t exist, because it was/is non-existence. In a pursuit of existence, it “became” something but it had to give up its immortality. It became/becomes something. Now it wanted to exist infinitely, to become immortal, as existence/something. Increasing the degree of immortality, and decreasing the degree of mortality, short-lived particles combined to form longer existing stable form of existence, from particles to atoms, to molecules to longer existing entities/beings like rocks, planets, solar-systems, galaxies, galaxy-clusters, cells, and what we call “living” organisms, societies, civilizations, and so on. To increase the chances, more trials were required, which means more civilizations, or galaxies, or organisms or types of them, more particles, and types of them, etc. But, in tending further towards the infinite existence, the realization that, nothing exists infinitely, i.e. ““Nothing” “exists” “infinitely””, gets stronger. Nothing ...

While there are multiple paths and quests in answering and finding the reason for the  situation of existence, all seek there be an answer or answers and a reason or reasons to the “existence”. The search for the “ultimate “truth” or the most fundamental statement(s) is commonly shared among all fields of experience, and this seems to be the one thing that captures most of the endeavour in existence, specifically, human existence. Is there a reason? Why not reasonlessness? Is there an answer? Is there an answer to this question including this one? While that might not be certain, Existence is certain, for existence. The answer to “why?” or “why existence?” seems, with a little bit of thinking, absurd. Questioning existence, specifically the why-question, is about asking whether there is an underlying fundamental reason to this existence or existence in general. It is absurd because existence by itself is “existence”, so anything beyond it is not so. And because whatever “reason” so...

There’s a reason why there is no reason why we exist. The reason is Nothing. The reason is no reason, and that’s the reason why we exist and that’s why there is no reason for any existence, because reason is no-reason. But if there is no reason, any existence is justified, even the existence that is not the existence that is “I”, though the existence is existence only with respect to that existence itself. Nonetheless, any existence A that’s the “not” of any “other” existence B, existence C, existence D,…, i.e. any existence A which is the nonexistence of any other existence B, C, D,…., and vice-versa, is justified. Therefore, any existence A being the nonexistence of existence B, C,…, any nonexistence is also justified. So, existence is justified, nonexistence is justified. So, any (relative) existence-nonexistence is justified. I.e. CONTRADICTION is justified. However, contradiction is not realizable and not realized because realization is experience, and experience is reality, and r...