Absolutism 13 – CONTRADICTION

Existence loves consistency. This is because Existence loves Permanence, it loves the Absolute, it loves Immortality.

Consistency is the desired one, be it in Universe, in the Space-time, in Quantum fields, in Logic, in Mathematics or axiomatic structures, in Religion, in everyday events, in the idea and concepts of God, in any structure. From the largest of the existence – the Universe/Multiverse, to the smaller ones, to the smallest existence – the spacetime chunk/particle/Quantum, i.e. event, to Particle-Anti-Particle (P-AP) pair/structure, to the Uncertainty (example: the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle/Relation), to me preaching about State[ment]verse.

Everything desires consistency, consistently, constantly. This ‘desire’ for consistency, like the ‘Question-Mark‘, and like the non-realization of consistency, is consistent, and seems so. [Yes, I said the non-realization of consistency. Will be explained later]

Mathematics, and Logic, and reason, and the ‘Laws of Physics and of Nature’, Induction or ‘Law of induction’, Religious doctrines, socio-cultural and socio-economical norms and ways, have all been so religious about consistency. They have all been about consistency. This God, consistency, has been revered and worshiped without questioning. The devotion towards Consistency is so unwavering, so firm, so unrelenting.

But consistency has been challenged and shattered down again and again and again, in the existence of multiple Gods and existence of multiple faiths and systems of ideas and existence of no single model/structure and no absolute, in the difference of opinions, in the difference/’wars’/difference of worldview and opinion between generations, in the disappointments when faiths and beliefs and expectations and egos came crashing down on being crushed down by ‘time’ time and again, in the transitions form one world order or region order, in the replacements and dethronement of one civilizational or political or religious entity by the other, in the breakthroughs of science, in the shattering of intuitions, in the revelation of incomprehensibles like the Quantum Mechanical entities & ideas & concepts in Physics and like no free-will in neuroscience and other incomprehensibles in other sciences and any other disciplines, in shattering of highly held notions, in the rise and fall of empires, in the Incompleteness theorem of Mathematics, in the limits of spaces, in the no conceivable way of looking at and no single explanation or no ‘explanation’ that yields single Universe or single model or absolute-model or the absolute but as a brute fact, in no absolute agreement to a particular opinion or theory or model, in diversity, in conflicts, in the ‘infinite’ necessary-contingent regression(s), in no singular truth or structure, in the absence of the Absolute, in every ‘transformations’ from that of entire cosmological structures to the transformations from one state/event to other state/event.

Consistency has been shattered by Contradiction that is and define the limit of Spaces, in the limit of our space of existence, in (& by) paradoxes, in the limit of our space-time and our classical models or any model(s), in the limit that is represented by the Quantum ideas, in (& by) the Uncertainty Principle, by Particle-Anti-Particle (P-AP) ‘pair’ in the ‘sea’ of P-AP ‘pairs’, by Quantum Fuzziness, by Quantum Superposition, by Quantum Indefiniteness, by Quantum Contradiction by Quantum Indefiception, by Quantum Infidefiception.

In any structure or notion of structure and organization and expansion of existence, this is the central theme, the central essence, the Aatman or Ātman or Atma (Sanskrit: आत्मन्) – the self, that is all about consistency, is all about Permanence, about the Absolute.

Virodhabhaas (Sanskrit: विरोधाभास) – the Contradiction/conflict, that is consistent/constant, between the search for consistency/immortality/absolute and the shattering of that expectation every time and not finding the Immortality or the Absolute or the consistent in Existence, is the source of every thing.

Every statement has ‘Not’/’Not-statement’. There is no statement which has no ‘Not’/Not-statement.

I have been wondering, why Mathematicians love consistency, why Physicists love ‘Laws of Physics’, which we also refer to as the ‘Laws of Nature’, why Physicist love consistency, why Physicists love the idea of theory of Everything and finding the common ground and basis of models and a more fundamental structure/model?

Also, why is it that my grandparents tell me that I should do this and follow such disciplines and not do that. Why do I, as now an adult, gets disappointed by the new ‘ways’ of new generation(s)?

Why is there a resistance, a kind of minor conflict between the older and newer generations? or between older and newer worldviews? or more generally between different worldviews?

Why do different worldviews exist in the first place? Why isn’t everything uniform or uniform throughout and Absolute? Why is dynamics, or more generally ‘existence’, possible with non-uniformity or with lesser entropy? Why light does not experience time and space?

Why is there soft reality? – the reality, like thoughts and ideas and theories and models, that is not as hard as what we refer to as this ‘external’ or ‘physical’ reality?, the soft reality that is responsible for the Relations between any two statements. The soft reality which is responsible for, and in which there exists, the causal relations, the models that we have in Physics and other Sciences and in religions, and in (& as) Civilizations and communities and societies and nations and groups.

This all is to ‘climb’ that ‘Immortality ladder’, whose each step-up is a increase in the degree of immortality and step-down decrease in that. This all is about ‘expansion’ of ‘existence’ in the ‘space of existence’, where expansion is the increase in the degree of immortality and contraction is the decrease in that. This all, to get to the absolute step of the Immortality ladder, to expand one’s existence throughout the space of existence. This all to get or attain and become that Absolute and become Immortal, to become Immortal/Absolute Existence, to attain both Existence and Immortality. [By the way, an example of the impossibility of Immortal Existence i.e. of Immortality and Existence, is or is confirmed by the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle:

Heisenberg’s Energy-Time Uncertainty Relation


But more than that, the impossibility of Immortal Existence i.e. of Immortality and Existence, is or is confirmed by Infidefiception, by State[ment]verse, and not, and is, and not, and is, and not, and so on ….. This is Infidefiception.

In this great climb, the ‘existence’ is to realize that the Absolute (that it is searching for) doesn’t exist. More precisely, the Absolute is non-existence, is Nothing. Some ‘existence’ realize after a long climb and huge expansion, some with less climb or expansion, some without climb or expansion. All this time, the Absolute was No-Absolute, Absolute is No-Absolute, Absolute is Non-Existence, Absolute is Nothing, Absolute is Everything, Absolute is Purna (Complete), Absolute is Contradiction, Absolute is Infidefiception, is State[ment]verse.

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