NOTHING = EVERYTHING – Something from NOTHING

NOTHING cannot be defined. EVERYTHING cannot be defined. Nothing cannot be defined, therefore every ‘thing’, not ‘Everything’, can be defined.

People often say, “If something comes out of something, it’d violate the ‘law of conservation”. That’s funny. There is an inherent assumption, though may not be explicit, that NOTHING has or is with or somehow isn’t the absence of the so called “Law of Conservation”. There is an implicit inherent assumption that Law of conservation pre-exists Everything, every existence. There is an implicit inherent assumption that this Law of Conservation survives Everything, every non-existence, that it survives ‘Nothing’, that it even rivals the NOTHING, that it is equal or even more essential or primordial and fundamental and Ultimate and Absolute that NOTHING. There is an assumption that this so called ‘Law’ or Laws are even Absolute and Supreme and Absolute than NOTHING. There is an assumption that NOTHING, or ‘NOTHING’, does not devour this law or any law(s), or that NOTHING fails to devour or consume or vanquish or dissolve these into NOTHING.

There is no Absolute. ABSOLUTE is NO-ABSOLUTE or NON-ABSOLUTE. NOTHING is ABSOLUTE. ABSOLUTE is NOTHING. NOTHING is the ULTIMATE/SUPREME, EVERYTHING is ULTIMATE/SUPREME. NOTHING is EVERYTHING. ABSOLUTE is INDEFICEPTION. ABSOLUTE is INFIDEFICEPTION.

ABSOLUTE is STATE[MENT]VERSE. ABSOLUTE is ALL-PERVADING, ALL-PERVASIVE. ABSOLUTE is VISÑU

If something (quote-unquote) ‘comes out’ of Nothing, then what is violated?

The (quote-unquote) ‘state’, of Nothing?

So basically, Nothing is violated.
So something can quote-unquote ’emerge out’ of Nothing.

Besides, the state of Nothing is Nothing, it’s not a state at all. It doesn’t exist. It is non-existence, it is NOTHING.

So again, Nothing is violated, and only “Nothing” is violated.

With Nothing, there is no law of conservation, there is no law or laws, there is no notion of law or laws, there is Nothing.

With Nothing, there is no “with Nothing”, there is no “with”, there is no notion of “with”, no notion of “notion”, no notion of “notion of ‘notion'”, and so on ….. It is Infidefiception, This is Infidefiception

Also, ‘something coming out of nothing’ is ‘something coming out of nothing’, that is, not coming out at all. Something coming out of nothing is something not coming out at all, it is not coming out of any thing, it is not coming out of Nothing.

So, because something coming out of nothing is not coming out of nothing or not coming out at all, when something emerges out of Nothing it doesn’t emerge at all. So, there is no violation, or (rather), violation is no-violation or non-violation.

It’s not that Something comes-out or Emerges-out of Nothing, Something is Nothing, NOTHING is EVERYTHING.

NOTHING is VISÑU is EVERYTHING. VISÑU is INDEFICEPTION. VISÑU is INFIDEFICEPTION. VISÑU 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