Arbitrary Existence

 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 layer of reasoning or justification for that existence or statement, terminates in further layer(s) of more fundamental justification. In other words, there is no reason or Nothing is the reason for, or that justifies, any existence, beyond a certain limit/point/layer.

Phrasing this in yet another way, we say that eventually or ultimately and most fundamentally, there is no reason or Nothing is the reason for any existence/anything. So, any thing/existence is justified by itself at the most fundamental level and eventually, and by nothing in yet further deeper fundamental level.

This absence of justification is what encodes the fundamental nature of existence and non-existence. Beginning from the absence of justification, we discuss the same idea expressed in https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-nature-of-nature.html and https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/nothing-everything.html and https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/statementverse.html and https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-story-of.html

The absence of justification has a reason, not in a traditional sense though. To be precise, the absence of justification or reason for (any) existence connects very well and sits very well and is, say, one of the forms or expression of the fundamental expression or idea expressed in the idea of “On the nature of Nature” and “State[ment]verse”. It is only the matter of how we see it, the ideas are one and the same and emerges from one another, and complements on another.

No justification, or Nothing as justification, is the (inherent) property and builds the “nature of Nature” or “State[ment]verse”.

With no justification for any existence/statement A, any other existence/statement B is also valid and can be justified, and vice-versa. Yes they’re, with respect to each other, non-existent/not true/False (or non-existence), and with respect to (w.r.t) themselves existent/True/not False (or existence). Any statement A, is not any other statement B, i.e. any statement A is the “NOT-statement” or complement of any other statement B. Similar is true for any statement B and C and D and so on…..

In A, B does not exist/is false, C does not exist, D does not exist and so on. Similarly, in D, A does not exist, B does not exist, C does not exist, E does not exist, and so on.

Now here’s a catch: Let us repeat this statement: With no justification for any existence/statement A, any other existence/statement B is also valid and can be justified, and vice-versa. With no justification to A, B can be true, i.e. not A or “NOT” of A is true. If there is no justification for A, then why not B. Why A and why not B then?, or C or D or E, and so on. So, with nothing as the justification for A, or with no justification for A, “B” “C” “D” “E” ….., can exist.

For simplicity though, we will consider only two entities/statements A, B, which will suffice to make the case. 1.) So, with no justification for any A, any B can justified. 2.) And looking at B, from the perspective of B, or in vice-versa terms, or starting with B, justificationless/reasonless B provides for the existence of “NOT B” i.e. “NOT” of B (here A). One can look at this second part of the argument as: With A being “NOT” of B and B being everything (w.r.t B), A is nothing (w.r.t B) . A as justification for B [and A as/being nothing (w.r.t B)] , or more precisely, no justification of A as justification for B, B has nothing as justification for B, And with no justification for B [or B as justification for A and B as/being nothing (w.r.t A)] , A can be justified.

So, no justification for one is, or provides, the justification for the other and vice-versa. OR, no justification of one counters the no justification of the other, and the justification of one counters the justification for the other, or rather they complement each other.

This is the generalization.

It’s specific example: The particle-antiparticle pair/pairing can be considered the specific example of this. Particle-Antiparticle pair, as I propose is just a case or example of the complementary state/statements/existence.

In all this, one thing that’s worth reiterating is “Nothing” justifies the existence or is the justification for the existence. And what that means, we’ve discussed it here – this discussed structure is what it means.

Also, what Nothing is actually, emerges out or can be seen here:

Recalling the fifth paragraph above this: So, no justification for one is, or provides, the justification for the other and vice-versa. OR, no justification of one counters the no justification of the other, and the justification of one counters the justification for the other, or rather they complement each other.

The existence of one counters that of other, because any existence is the “Not”-state/statement of the other. For example, A is “Not”/Non-existence of B, C, D, …, B is “Not”/Non-existence of A, C, D, …, and so on. So, in this construct/structure (which is not a construct/structure as well by the way), A exists, “B” “C” “D”, …, doesn’t, B exists, “A” “C” “D”, …, doesn’t, and so on. So, A exists, A doesn’t exist, B exists, B doesn’t exist, C exists, C doesn’t, D exists, D doesn’t, and so on. There is existence, there is no existence/non-existence. Also, since the existence of one and any, is countered/negated/complemented by the existence of the other, i.e. by one’s non-existence, any existence (for example A) exists, doesn’t exist. And since this, this allows any existence and any number of existence to exist-nonexist. This means any and any number of existence/state/statement/entity exists, as it doesn’t as well. So, adding up one, two or any or infinite number of states, won’t make a difference to the complete/whole stateverse/statementverse. The reason is obvious by now: any existence is countered/complemented by it’s non-existence – other/other’s existence. So, statementverse [A,B] with A,B is same as statementverse with A,B,C, which is same as statementverse with A,B,C,D, which is same as statementverse with A,B,C,D,E, …., and so on. Each existence/state is the “Not”-statement/non-existence/non-state/complement of the other state. Any two states, mutually complement each other, they bring each other and their existence out and and dissolve them. This structure (-non-structure), this Statementverse, this Everything-Nothing, existence-nonexistence is what Nothing is, and Everything is. Also this answers the question, ” Why can’t there simply be Nothing?”, and the answer is that there is, in fact, nothing.

One note that may be interesting is that since at the foundation there is Nothing, and existence is relative, this is the absolute theory of ‘relativity’. Absolute because and in as sense that here, Nothing is absolute and ultimate and non-relative, everything, i.e. every existence/state/statement/truth, is relative.

For comparison consider Einstein’s Theory of relativity. In this, laws of nature, which involve the universal maximum possible speed through space, are absolute and ultimate, around which space-time are relative and can contract, stretch, etc. There is a foundational layer, a basis, which is absolute and ultimate, which defines Einstein’s theory of relativity, and that is constituted by the statements like laws of nature (which includes the universal maximum speed limit) being invariant, equivalence principle, etc. Here, however, the only Absolute and ultimate is Nothing, Nothing is Absolute or ultimate. Therefore, the theory presented here is Absolute theory of relativity. It is the theory of relativity of Existence.

Why can’t there simply be Nothing?

It is discussed earlier what Nothing actually is. However, let’s consider the question again. Well, it’s already been discussed how it’s actually Nothing, all that there is, so the question has been answered. But it is understandable that the problem that makes this question appear is actually the traditional conceptualization or visualization associated with nothing, which is not quite right. The secrets of Nothing is revealed when looked upon much more finely and when we delve into what nothing is. The picture and structure of Statementverse presented here is what Nothing is. It is clear and is put forward earlier that, statementverse with A,B is same as statementverse with A,B,C, which is same as statementverse with A,B,C,D, which is same as statementverse with A,B,C,D,E, …., and so on. OR inversely, statementverse with A,B,C,D,E, …., is same as statementverse with A,B,C,D, which is same as statementverse with A,B,C, which is same as statementverse with A,B, and so on. Now taking a step further, statementverse with A,B,C,D,E, …., with A,B,C,D, with A,B,C, with A,B, with A,NA (not A or any B or C or D or …, which basically is the same thing) and so on, is same as Nothing i.e. is same as statementverse with nothing – “Not” of a “thing”. This basically is Not of A – which means is B, C, D, E, ….., is Not of B – which means is A, C, D, E, ….., is Not of E – which means is A, B, C, D, ….., and so on, which again is Everything, as is discussed in detail here: https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/nothing-everything.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On the nature of Nature

Image
  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...
Read more

Absolutism – The search for the Absolute

I often ask myself, what? why?, I can find many hows, so hows are not primary for me. It is the easiest among them. No matter what the answer is, or how many answers there are, it all fades to insignificance. What does not fade in insignificance is the question itself. It stands strong and proud as ever. Trying to find the answer, the search has always been for an answer. The answer that is supposedly nothing but that is expected to be the representation of the Absolute – that which is invariant, immortal, Permanent. But everything, every answer fades and is temporary, goes extinct, vanishes into nothing, into insignificance. The ‘answer’ that was supposed to express and teach immortality, itself fades to non-existence, itself consumed by death so to speak. Never ever came to realization, that the Question that has been staring at me, and that I’ve been staring at, is the one that has never abandoned me. It has always stood there facing the answer that were supposed to destroy it, and,...
Read more

NOTHING = EVERYTHING

Image
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...
Read more