The Story of ……

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 exists infinitely, i.e. is immortal, means that non-existence exits infinitely. Infinite existence is impossible. So, that which exists infinitely does not exist at all. Nothing exists infinitely, Nothing is immortal. Non-existence exists infinitely, Non-existence is immortal.

Now in pursuit of immortality, existence/something becomes or tends to become nothing, and give up ‘being’ at all, and thus returns to Nothing.

But returning to Nothing is not returning at all. Also, “becoming” from nothing is “not becoming” at all.  

So, something came from nothing means something came from nothing. It means something didn’t come from anything. To come from nothing is to not come at all. Similarly, to go and become nothing is to not become at all.

So, coming out of nothing is not coming out of nothing, because coming out of nothing is not coming out, at all. Similar is for becoming or going to nothing. So nothing is contradictory and is contradiction.  (Same is true for everything as well, by the way).

If set E = {…} is or represents ‘everything’, then to say X did not come from anything is to say that it did come out of any element that belongs to E. But that X did not come from anything, is not true exactly. Being something, or if X is something or a thing, it must belong to E. Now, X being X must come from itself, which also means to not come, because coming out of itself is not coming out at all, and not coming out of anything. Because coming out of itself is not coming out at all, conversely, not coming out is coming out of itself. Also not coming out at all, is not coming out of anything, and is coming out of itself. So, X comes out of itself and being a thing/existence is an element of E. Therefore, X did come from something that, and therefore it did come from the element that belong to E, namely itself i.e. X.

Now, to say something came out of nothing is to say it did not come out from anything. Conversely, to say something did not come out of anything is to say it came out of nothing. So something can come out of nothing. Similar applies to become nothing, or nothing from something.

Now, as something steps up the ladder of immortality, it tends to become nothing, and thus vanish out of existence.

Now, to come or return to nothing means to not come out and return to anything, and to not come out and return to nothing. This suggests that even something is immortal. Because it didn’t come out of anything, and doesn’t return to nothing, so it’s immortal. So, something/existence is not immortal and is immortal.

This is contradiction.

Well, contradiction defines the limit/boundary/border of any space/existence. The contradiction here defines the limit of our understanding, our space of reason and logic. It defines the boundary of ‘everything’, of nothing. Now because the boundary defines what it bounds, this contradiction defines ‘everything’, it defines ‘nothing’. At the limit of any space, the consistency with respect to that space breaks down. This is because at boundary, there is also the “other” space, that is the NOT-statement of the space of concern/interest. These spaces do not agree with each other with respect to the very fundamental thing that defines them or that is them. That why they are “different” from each other. Any two spaces that are same with respect to each other are not “two” spaces, because the “two” here implies that they are different. So, there can be no more than a single space that is same with respect to the space that is itself, or namely itself. There can be no copy.