The Foundation – The BASIS

What are numbers? What is abstract? What is abstractness?

What is consciousness? What is awareness? What is experience itself? What is empirical? What is information itself? What is redness?

Does everyone see the “RED” as “RED” or is it that some see “RED” as “RED” and others as “GREEN”, and some others as “BLUE” and so on? i.e. does everyone see “RED” the way “I” see “RED”?

Is it possible to answer these question? Is it a valid question? Can the answer not be the subject of the query itself? Can we answer this with something other than the subject of the query itself? i.e. Can we define the subject with respect to/in terms of something other than the subject itself? i.e. without involving the subject itself?

The Idea of BASIS

As it is clear from the blanks above, it is impossible to not make a leap/certain finite (quantum) jump to something else, or not define something else, and still construct/give rise to/define something else.

[Even nothing is something in the language of Set. Hence, a leap/q (quantum)-leap from nothing to something is a q-leap from something to something else.]

Also, it is impossible not to have a defined primitive structure/something. The blank(s), though is nothing (we can call that), it is some structure and is the most primitive. What could be more primitive? Is it possible to get rid of any and all primitive(s) altogether? Is it possible that there exist no any primitive(s)?

The primitive is a Basis/foundation of everything that follows or exists.

Even everything up to now is based/founded on some primitive structure that exists in the back of the head, and of which one may or may not be conscious of.

Let’s begin by considering a simple example:

Consider a real number line.

UPDATE: JUNE-05-2020

Today I sat to think and wonder about my consciousness, my experience-the reality and my imagination, abstractness, ideas, concepts, basically the whole experience.

Well, while I was meditating on the mantra which I was reciting with a loud whisper, I felt fading of my attention from the mantra to something else-some other thoughts. While this is natural, I also felt the fading of the attention to sleep-no consciousness. Though I quickly came to attention and restarted whispering the mantra and forced concentrated on the mantra, it hit me hard and made me think. It was a blink of sleep, and bang, a resurge to consciousness. This was like a steady stream of attention to the mantra, which tried to fade away-a tussle between attention to the mantra and attention to no-mantra, and the suddenly falling into an infinite potential well with infinitesimal width (a Dirac function well)-sloop.

I tried to think about it but reminded myself to complete the meditation and convinced to think it through after the completion of my meditation.

After the completion of meditation, I began to think:

Well I’ve been concerned for days and months about umm… everything lately. Well, it’s COVID-19 (corona)-time and lockdown and the global situation makes you think. But that’s not entirely the reason. I’ve always been a loner and a thinker, and extended lockdown helps people like us think better.

There’s always been a sense of wanna know, know the answers to questions such as what?, why?, how? Sometimes (BTW most often in a lockdown like situations) it makes us wonder, it makes us think, and ask, “what the heck is this all?”, “what the heck is this all about?”

I think it’s all about finding closure, but why? Why do we want/desire closure?

I can’t speak for the others, but I certainly seek closure? However, I’m not so attached and addicted and … by it. On the contrary, and for my amazement, I also love no-closure. I also wish for and support no closure. I wish that there is no closure. But isn’t that a closure as well?

To realize that there is no closure is also realizing closure. Closure basically has to do with having certain completeness about a subject or the whole of everything. A structure that’s complete.

We desire such structure, even if this structure consists of “no-closure” revelation. All we want is to know for certain whether there is closure or no-closure, this or that, God or no-God (NGod), a complete ultimate theory of everything or no such theory. All we want is a definite answer, definiteness, a complete structure, no uncertainty/certainty.

But it’s one thing to desire and other to really achieve. Does closure/completeness/definiteness or thing like ultimate reality even exist? Even asking this question suggests of that desire for closure. This question is basically about the closure about closure.

We desire for closure and try to achieve it. We develop theories, construct some (mental /theoretical) structure-a Basis/foundation on which we base, or try to base, everything or some of what we experience. It is impossible not to do so. We not only do it consciously but also sub-consciously. We cannot even exist without Basis, the existence/consciousness/experience/reality being the basis itself. We cannot even not-exist without Basis, non-existence being the basis, with again existence being the basis of non-existence and the vice versa being just apparent.

Now why did I say that, “existence being the basis of non-existence and the vice versa being just apparent.”?

Think of a simple example: Many cosmological theories, theories of cosmogony or creation theories begin by considering there to be nothing and taking a leap to no-nothing (example: god, some fluctuation, etc) and then everything.

In these “Nothing” is a basis based on which everything is defined. Some may argue the no-nothing to be the base (for example god). But because “Nothing” precedes all the others and forms the primitive/primeval/founding paradigm/idea/concept/whatever, it is actually the Basis.

But, if we think a step further, what is the thing that precedes even this and is a must for even this/these idea(s) to even exist?

It is consciousness/experience/reality. We may argue that consciousness is founded on material and that material preexists consciousness, and further argue that it is “Nothing” that forms the ultimate basis. But again, we can always argue that all these material, nothing and all the ideas/concepts and any structure require consciousness. We can make the same case for material and/or “Nothing” saying that consciousness requires them.

However, one thing that is clear is that, no matter what, we seek closure. We express this desire here by asking about what really forms the Basis? And also express it by asking a question on the next level: whether there is any definite answer to it?

There are cases where we resort to insincere/dishonest/immoral ways to achieve the closure. What does that mean?

We tend to construct some complete structure and try to preserve and protect such structure by any means, be it with some cosmological theories or metaphysical theories or philosophical theories or logical theories or scientific theories or religious theories.

Our consciousness tries to form a complete structure around our raw experience. Even our perceived raw experience/reality may not be so raw and may not be fundamentally real/raw.  Maybe there is nothing like fundamentally real/raw data from reality that is excluded and independent of conscious experience.

However, what we do have for certain is the categorization and distinction, that we make consciously or sub-consciously or fundamentally (as part of our primeval conscious Basis), of realm of soft reality, i.e. realm of imaginary, abstract, conceptual, logical, and of realm of hard raw reality.

We can categorize and distinguish reality in two parts: One being the raw or hard reality and the other being soft reality, i.e. realm of imagination, abstract, concept, logic, etc. The later may be the result of our consciousness trying to form a complete structure around our raw hard experience. 

Is hard reality the section of reality/consciousness that we are more aware and soft reality that section which we are not as aware? Is the complete experience/consciousness/reality just about the degree of awareness? But what is awareness? Awareness is about the amount of information.

<<What is information? Though we can provide a certain definition of information, information/consciousness/state/statement/reality, if it is the most fundamental, cannot be defined in terms of anything other than itself. This is because of the Idea of Basis. Everything else is founded and defined in terms of basis, the basis, therefore, can only be defined in its own terms and only by itself in accordance to its definition. Basis defines itself and everything in its space. If it does not define itself, it doesn’t meet its definition that states basis as that which defies/brings into existence everything (which must include itself). Hence, this would lead to contradiction and to the edge of the system/structure/space that the basis forms. The approach to the edge from within this space/structure is the approach to the basis from within, which is acceptable as this approach from within the space doesn’t violate the “completeness” asserted in the definition of basis. But approach form out of the defined structure to the basis violates the defined “completeness” and defines basis as “out of the structure”, which therefore doesn’t meet the definition of the structure/space defined from within. It all lies in the definition.

The basis is like a border (by the way, border is just a basis itself, and a leverage has been taken in this example to better communicate the idea) and every system and everything, as the Idea of Basis suggests, has basis and can be reduced to basis. Now, the basis of a system/structure/space defines that space, defines everything in that space including itself. Now when something is defined, its negation is also defined, since the negation of that structure/space is simply the space that lies beyond that space/structure, i.e. space(s)/structure(s) that is the complement of that particular space/structure.

Now, consider a border between two regions/spaces (A and B), represented by the line. The border separates the two spaces. Where does the line lie? Does it belong to A or B? OR A and B?  If we approach it from the side of space A, it belong to A, and if we approach it from the side of B, it belongs to B. The same basis belongs to different spaces but it’s the definition that matters. The definition that defines the basis and, in this example, defines the space A, is the basis of A. The definition that defines the basis and, in this example, defines the space B, is the basis of B. It all lies in the definition. It all lies in form where the approach is made.

Hence basis defines itself and a space. Information being basis defines itself and everything that lies in its space.

Therefore one cannot question the basis or its validity. To be precise, one cannot question the basis in terms of any other entities in that space, because there is no definition of basis in terms of any other entity, i.e. answer to such question doesn’t exist. But basis can be question in its own terms, as basis can be defined in terms of itself and answer to such question exist.>>

The other question is that whether hard/raw reality, which has higher degree of awareness, is the projection of soft reality, which has lower degree of awareness?

Or

Is soft reality some sort of extrapolation of hard reality that is constructed to try to form a complete structure of consciousness around the raw experience/hard reality?

Are there other parts of reality/experience/consciousness that we’re not yet aware of or that we cannot be aware of?

In the contest between basis being external to consciousness, which we generally refer to as materialism, and consciousness being the basis, we can note that consciousness has the upper hand and here’s how:

It all comes down to the Idea of Basis. As we dealt border as an example of basis, we considered a line that shapes a space and separates a particular space from the “rest”/complement space. Now, say the space this line or curve defines is A and the complement/rest is represented by C/R. Now the interface, i.e. the curve, between A and R has such status/property:

The curve (call it I or C for interface or curve), belongs to:

• Space A = Not Space R
• Space R = Not Space A

Let’s call the collection of these two statements K.

• i.e. K = {Space A = Not Space R, Space R = Not Space A}

This equivalently means, that I belongs to:

• Both Spaces A and R
• Neither Spaces A and R

The lower two statements are individually equivalent to the combination of the upper two, i.e. The lower first is equivalent to K, and the lower second is equivalent to K.

Also, the lower two statements are equivalent to each other. This equivalency can be drawn from their individual equivalency with K, and also from their own definition. However, it is to be understood clearly, and is mentioned earlier, that A and R are complements of each other.

The interface I is the limit of space A and R, as is any interface. It is the limit of A approached from within A, and it is the limit of R if approached form within R.

In other words, it is the limit of A when R is approached from within A, and it is the limit of R when A approached form within R.

This is how we could define infinitesimal and the concept of it, and the concept of point.

So, basis is, as we can see, literally the limit of the definition of Space that it (basis) defines and brings into existence.

So, as can be seen, basis does belong to the space it defines/creates but it also doesn’t belong to it. Belongs, doesn’t belongs are the same the equivalent and the same thing.

So interface I belongs to A and doesn’t, belongs to R and doesn’t. It belongs to both and to neither.

This is because basis cannot be defined in terms of something other but itself. But this also means that it can be defined There is a limit to any system/space, be it mathematical system of axioms or of consciousness or any, and that limit is the basis of those spaces/systems. That basis cannot be defined in any other way but by itself, i.e. basis is self-definable and is self-defined (examples of basis: axioms in the space/system of axioms in mathematics, conscious empirical hard reality in physics, conscious hard real geometry or geometry in mathematics, etc).

******** [ID]

Every space/system has limit, and that limit is the basis of that system. Now because the basis is self-defined and defines the space and the rest, i.e. is part of both the spaces A and R and none. This is why at the limit of every space/system there exists contradiction. The contradiction represents that basis (the limit of space) is not definable in any other terms but itself.

Approaching the basis/interface I from within space A, or from within space R, is approaching the limit of that space, i.e. trying to define the basis/limit/interface in terms of that space because in that space basis is defined/defines itself in accordance with the definition of that space, i.e. as integral part of that space. That’s because the very definition of being within that space is to be defined as per the definition of that space and define everything as per the definition of that space, since there exists nothing (no other space) but that space. Approaching limit of a space means to approach the end of that space. That is basically the definition of basis/limit, at least here. Therefore at the limit of every space, that space tends to cease to exist and eventually ceases to exist, i.e. the space is undefined and the definition of that space applies/exists no more. The defined-space A/R exists no more at the limit. The contradiction is this indefiniteness/undecidedness/uncertainty. That space cannot be defined because there that space exists no more.

But, that’s not the complete truth: To be correct, that space, and no/every space, exists and doesn’t. However, what ceases to exist is the definite space A/R and their definitiveness, which again means that their definitiveness exists and doesn’t. This also means that even the definitiveness of the indefinitiveness of the spaces doesn’t exist, but also does. So, even the definitiveness of the indefinitiveness of the indefinitivesness of the spaces doesn’t exist, but also does, and so on… [{What this means is that no definition exits at the limit}, not even the bracketed one, and so on…].

[[[[The complete truth is that there is no complete truth, and there is]. Even the bracketed term exists and doesn’t]. So is with the bracketed bracketed term]. So is with the bracketed bracketed bracketed term]. So is with the bracketed bracketed bracketed bracketed term]…]…

The definition of any space is the basis of that space as basis defines itself and that space and not the other way around. Approaching/observing the basis from within the space means observing the basis within that space. So for space A, basis I exists/lies within space   A. Also, for space R basis I exists within R. Spaces are therefore complete in themselves and by themselves. This definition/basis of any space exists within that space as according to that space. The basis being the limit thus separates A from R. Now R is the complement of A, and the complement of A is the simply not A.  Not A is not any other space B and/or C and/or D and/or…, and also is B and/or C and/or D and/or… It is none of them and all of them. It is undefined/undefinable. It is also A. We can refer to this as basis not approached from within any defined space and approached from within defined space A and/or defined space B and/or defined space C and/or defined space D, and/or so on… It is the quantum superposition of spaces/definitions/states. It is basically the limit/non-existence of definition itself. And that also means it is not, i.e. is the existence of definition, and not, and so on… [{What this means is that no definition exits at the limit}, not even the bracketed one, and so on…]. R basically is the basis I-an undefined/indefinable, which defines itself as according to the space it defines and it assumes that definition within that space.

In the context of R, therefore, I is undefined/indefinable, i.e. taking a basis view/superposition view/upper view, I cannot be defined. It is basically the limit/non-existence of definition itself. And that also means it is not, i.e. is the existence of definition, and not, and so on… [{What this means is that no definition exits at the limit}, not even the bracketed one, and so on…].

It is emphasized that indefiniteness doesn’t mean the absence of definition, it also means the absence of absence of definition and absence of absence of absence of definition and so on…

For convenience and to avoid confusion, we will write “indefiniteness” as defined here (and not defined and so on…) as ID, and ordinary usual indefiniteness as OID. 

This also invokes that “definiteness” (contemporary of “indefiniteness”), as defined (and not defined and so on…), be written as (simply) DE, and ordinary usual definiteness as ODE.

The Idea of Basis applies to every space/system.

******** [ID]

<[<Now to emphasize a bit more about what ID really represents, we, in way, take a further look into the definition and try to understand further:

ID in a way can be defined as statement(s) (which will be called as negation axiom (NA)) that states:

“There is no statement that has no not”, i.e. “There is/exists no statement whose negation is not/doesn’t exist.” i.e. “There is/exists no statement corresponding to which, there is no statement that is, the negation of that statement.” i.e. “There is/exists no statement A, corresponding to which there is no statement that is the negation of that statement A.” i.e. “There is/exists no statement whose negation cannot be obtained.” i.e. “There is/exists no statement whose negation cannot be conceived.”

i.e. “Every statement has a corresponding negation” i.e. “Every statement has a corresponding statement that is the negation of that statement.” i.e. “Every statement has a corresponding statement that is its negation.” i.e. “For every statement A, there is/exists a statement (in its own right/by its own definition) that is the negation of that statement A.” i.e. “For every statement A, a statement that is a negation of statement A can be conceived.” i.e. “For every statement A, a negation statement can be conceived” [By conceived what is meant is that we can get a negation statement by just adding “not” to that statement, of which a negation is considered or required.]

i.e. “For any, and every, statement A, there corresponds a statement(s) that is a negation of that statement A.” i.e. “For any, and every, statement A, there corresponds, at least one, statement that is a negation of that statement A.”

i.e. “There is no statement whose negation is not.” i.e. “Every statement can be negated.”

There is a one-to-one correspondence between any statement and its negation.

Since the above statements are themselves statements/independent statements, there are statements that correspond as negation-statements to these statements.

Now, consider “Every statement has a corresponding negation”. This statement (or any of the statements above), if applied to themselves, seem to run into contradiction.  This means that the application of this statement(s) to themselves is to approach and reach the limit of that statement, i.e. is to approach and reach the limit/border of the space defined by that statement.

To not apply corresponds to not approach and not reach that limit, and remain within.

Now, ID is/can be thought of as such statement(s) that applies to itself indefinitely and infinitely. This also means that, and being ID, ID is not/cannot be thought of as such, which again means it is/can, and which again means it isn’t/cannot, and so on…

The statements mentioned above, i.e. statements such as, “There is no statement whose negation is not” i.e. “Every statement can be negated” can be thought of as ID. However, this negation-axiom can only be thought as special case of ID and not necessarily the ID. But then, every statement/space/set is a special case of ID and they are just ID defined as them.

Negation of these statements do not belong to the definition of these statements, i.e. do not belong to the space defined by these definitions/statements. They belong to space other than that space. This “other space” is also just another statement. Now, one can think of the other space as a bigger space/set and containing within it the above space/statement and its negation, and this other space/statement can be thought of as yet another bigger version of the statement/space mentioned above, i.e. bigger version of statement: “Every statement can be negated”, i.e. “There is no statement whose negation is not.”

However, all these statements are in themselves independent statements and none is a bigger than or smaller than the other. It’s just that there is a statement “Every statement can be negated”, which do not involve its negation, and statement “Every statement can be negated”, which involves the negation of the other statement “Every statement can be negated”.

But this isn’t quite right. Actually if there is a statement “Every statement can be negated” and statement “Every statement can be negated”, they are the same statement/space. So, in actuality there is a statement “Every statement can be negated”, and a statement “Every statement can be negated except this one”. OR there are statements such as “Every statement I, J, K and L can be negated” and “Every statement M, N can be negated” and “Every statement P, Q, K can be negated” and “Every statement T, O H can be negated” and “Every statement can be negated” and so on…

All these and any statement is an independent statement.

ID is/can also be thought of as statement to which there corresponds no negation (i.e. has no negation). So, ID is a statement to which corresponds no statement that is the negation of ID, i.e. ID is a statement corresponding to which there is no corresponding statement that is the negation of ID, i.e. ID is a statement to which corresponds no negation, i.e. ID cannot be negated.

So, ID is not any A that falls within the definition of statement(s)/space defined by the statement(s) such as “There is no statement whose negation is not.” i.e. “Every statement can be negated.” ID doesn’t belong to such definitions and spaces. ID is beyond such definitions and spaces defined by such definitions/statements.

But then, is ID a statement? Well it isn’t and is.

But again, and being ID, ID is not/cannot be thought as such, which also means, and being ID, it can be, which again means it isn’t/cannot, and so on…  

So, ID can be defined only as ID and it is the one that defines. It can be thought of as the ultimate basis, but again not as it and again as it and so on…

So,  the definition of ID is the one within ******** [ID].

We can represent ID in a better way not as ID but as [ID,¬ID], where “¬” indicates/represents “not”. However, it is still convenient to use just ID.

Also,   There is not just one-to-one correspondence between any statement and its negation but also, maybe/possibly, one-to-many correspondence between any statement and its negation(s).

There is one-to-one correspondence between any statement & its negation, and/or one-to-many correspondence between any statement and its negation(s).

Every independent statement is a not/negation of any other independent statement.>]>

<<THE POINT/Infinitesimal and Infinity:

What is point? It is the primitive geometrical structure (ref. Euclid’s geometry). According to Euclid, “it is that which is not.” (ref. Euclid’s geometry).

Now, as point is the primitive geometrical structure, it can be considered as the basis of all geometrical structures. Now taking a basis view, as applied before, point becomes the undefined/indefinable (to understand it better consider the border-line mentioned above).

The other argument is:

We begin by considering infinity. Infinity is associated with something that has no bound and is the greater than any real number or natural number (ref. Wikipedia). It can be associated with the idea that there always will exist a number (real or natural) that is greater than the now greatest number. We can refer to it as stating that there is nothing like the “greatest number”. No number is the greatest number, no size is the greatest size.

So, whenever the greatest number is found/defined as n, a new greatest number can be found/defined which is n+1, which renders the previous greatest number not the greatest. So, defining the greatest number is impossibility, i.e. defining/asserting the “greatest number” as some definite number “n” is impossibility.

But if a definite space/set of numbers is defined, i.e. a finite set of numbers i.e. a defined set of numbers whose definition includes the definition of the greatest number i.e. a definite set where there exists the definite greatest number, there is always a number among them that is the greatest. So, the “greatest number” in this context can be defined.

So in a sense, infinity reflects the indefiniteness.

We can argue this in terms of definite and indefinite numbers. First we define definite and indefinite numbers:

Definite numbers are those with finite/definite place values, i.e. those that have terminating decimal expansions. A natural number line, for example, has points (as basis) to which can be assigned the definite numbers, i.e. which can be defined as/with natural numbers. The vice-versa also holds true, i.e. the natural numbers can be defined as/with the points of the natural number line. One can assign a unique definite number to every point in a geometric line (here, for example, representing the natural number line), i.e. one can always define (completely), or not define (incompletely), the point that forms the basis of this geometric structure. Now because there is no indefinite definition, i.e. no indefiniteness, in context of natural line, the point here is not infinitesimal (indefinite). That basically means there is no point in natural line. The basis/fundamental structure for natural line is the unit line- point of unit size. So points/numbers represent definitiveness in natural line and other such non-real line. Numbers here represent/define a definite value.

Indefinite numbers are those with infinite/indefinite place values, i.e. those that have non-terminating decimal expansions. A real number line, for example, has points (as basis) to which can be assigned the indefinite numbers, i.e. which can be defined as/with real numbers. The vice-versa also holds true, i.e. the real numbers can be defined as/with the points of the real number line. One can assign a unique indefinite number to every point in a geometric line (this line represents the real number line), i.e. one can always define (incompletely), or not define (completely), the point that forms the basis of this geometric structure. Now because there is no definite definition, i.e. no definiteness, in context of real line, the point here is infinitesimal (indefinite). That basically means there is point in real line. The basis/fundamental structure for real line is the infinitesimal line- point of infinitesimal size. So points/numbers represent indifinitiveness in real line. Numbers here represent/define an indefinite value.

It is to be noted that “unique indefinite” can be basically called not unique. This is because in case of real line or infinitesimal, point can only be defined as indefinite. This means that a point cannot be defined completely i.e. cannot be defined, as it requires an infinite number of defined place values. Now because a point cannot be defined in this context, points in this context cannot be compared or distinguished. However, this might just be a view through the scope of natural line, or scope of line which have defined basis (point) which the natural line represents. The point of real line, or point of line which have indefinite basis (point), which the real line represents, can however be compared or distinguished in indefinite terms, i.e. via the scope of real or such lines. But, that again means that the comparison or distinction is indefinite, i.e. undefined. Therefore, it can be said that “unique indefinite” represents basically “not unique”.

It can be said that real line is the most fundamental line. To be precise, line with indefinite point, or with indefinite-sized point, (say indefinite line) is the most fundamental line. Also, the indefinite point is the most basic/fundamental structure, i.e. it is the basis of all geometric structure. In general, indefinite point represents the most fundamental basis i.e. basis viewed from the basis view.  When indefinite point assumes the definition of unit, the geometric space/structure that it constructs is a natural line, if it defines itself as half the unit, it constructs a geometric structure with 0.5 length basis, and so on… So, indefinite line (represented by real line) can assume the definition of natural line or lines with definite sized basis (represented by definite point). In other words, definite line (represented by natural line) can assume the definition of real line or lines with indefinite sized basis (represented by indefinite point).

Now, it is quite clear that infinity is relevant or common to both the likes of natural line and to the real line. In both cases infinity represents impossibility of definition, and represents indefiniteness. So, the reciprocal of this indefinity, or its comparison with unity (defined or undefined), results the indefinity i.e. the indefiniteness, i.e. infinitesimal-an undefined zero/point. Zero, in usual terms, being definite infinitesimal/point.

Infinity represents something non-terminating, i.e. something endless. Infinity is basically about something that can go on endlessly, for example numbers. So, implying that something is infinite means that that something is non-terminating. This may not be a problem when we think of numbers or some abstract/SR entity. But, the same is not true in context of Physics. For example, when we say space is infinite, we mean space goes on forever. But the thing is that physics is about HR, which can be observed and realized as HR. Infinity in context of HR can never be realized because, for example, even if space is infinite (say for the sake of argument), we can go on but all that will be realized is finity, not infinity. No matter how far we travel, there will always be the possibility of existence of a boundary or loop, which one can never escape. For something to be HR, it must be realizable as HR. Infinity by definition is not HR-realizable. Therefore infinity doesn’t exist as HR. In other words, the only thing that is HR-realizable (i.e. realizable as HR) is the finite. This argument therefore includes, or can be stretched to include, infinitesimal.

What this means is that the non-terminating property of any system cannot be realized as HR. In other words, the non-terminating property of HR system cannot be realized. The same can be argued for SR. Though it might appear that numbers do go on forever, it cannot be proved or realized even in context of SR. We can define a SR system to be infinite, but it cannot be proved/realized directly, be in the context of SR or HR.

The reason this is true for SR is because SR is simply a structure based on HR.

In general, point may represent ID or OID, i.e. undefined point

We could make a simple argument that, because infinity represents something that is non-existent, to be precise, something that is OID (i.e. exists as well), or ID. Therefore, infinitesimal represents something that doesn’t exist either, to be precise, something that is OID (exists as well), or ID.>>

Now represent space A with your inner-self and R with the physical-verse thought to be independent of the inner-self. All one can do is approach the basis (the limit of inner-self/consciousness) from within and not from “without”. The interface I that is between these is the basis of both the spaces. R-space, i.e. rest/”without” (i.e. the so called independent physical-verse), is just beyond the reach of the inner-self, i.e. A-space). The hard reality (HR) represents/is the basis/interface, and can only be approached/understood/defined from within and as the integral part of the inner-verse. We cannot not be A (inner-self), i.e. we cannot be R (physical-verse “independent” of us/our inner-self). This means, A cannot be A without being A and R cannot be R without being R, i.e. A cannot be A by being R and R will cease to be R by being A, by the very definition. Also, the physical-verse or any other A (say A”) cannot become A, by the very definition of.  It all lies in the definition.  

Now, with this, it is also impossible for A (or in A-space) to actually prove the existence of any R, i.e. it is impossible to prove that there exists any physical-verse, other consciousness, past, future, any “other” system/reality that is exterior and independent of A. So, it becomes meaningless to say that there exists R, i.e. realities, exterior to A.

HR to SR to HR:

HR to SR

Science has been about taking a good look at the empirical hard reality (HR) and constructing a general soft real (SR) version of that HR, which tires to incorporate and account for all the like observed/realized hard real (HR). It’s basically taking and putting the common from all the observations made on HR to obtain the general SR structure. But are such SRs complete representation/description of observed HR?

Well, given that not all HR entities or HR or HR forms has been experienced/realized and the absence of any assurance to there being finite HR-forms and also how unexpected or different or wild they maybe, we can never be certain that the SR model/representation of HR is HR-complete. Even if we don’t consider this aspect of HR, SR-representation(s) of HR are not HR-complete and are only approximations to HR.  But why is it that any HR entity cannot be completely represented by some other HR entity or by some combinations of HR entities or by SR, which actually is less-conscious/realizable/inner/mental representation of HR/interface?

A more general question is, why is it that any A cannot be completely represented by any B?

The answer is simple. It is because B represents A but is not A.

Though SR is an inner mental representation of HR, it isn’t actually HR. This is also same for an HR entity representing another HR entity. For example, a cave painting of a tiger does represent tiger but it isn’t tiger. Though cave painting of tiger expresses its look to some extent, it is incapable of capturing the entire “tiger”, or entirety of tiger or entire tigerness of tiger.

Now, does this same idea apply to any SR representation of HR?

Because SR is simply less-conscious/realizable/inner/mental representation of HR/interface, which may involve representation of one HR entity with another HR entity or with some combinations of various HR entities, and is a reverse engineered structure/space around HR,

[central questions: what are we doing in the name of constructing a TOE or seeking the ultimate reality? What is this all about? Why are we seeking such? What is SR all about? Is there such ultimate rigid SR structure (based on HR) that involves every (HR). Is it even possible that we be sure of such structure to be the “eternal” truth? Can we be sure? Or is it like trying to realize, or realize, infinity? Should we question not about whether there is ultimate reality or not, but rather about why do ask such question? Should we question ourselves why we seek answers to such questions? Should we question the question about the question? Should we question the question about the question about the question? And so on…? should we not question at all? But what makes us question? Closure?]- The answer to all these is Closure. We’re trying to construct a closed space of reality (HR+SR)-a space that is complete. So, please continue. Continue to explore why the SR-structure, about any set of HR, doesn’t/cannot explain the HR completely.

[Also put some thought into why the ancient Rishis renounced everything and moved to jungles or mountains. Was it to seek knowledge about what’s really going on? Or Was it because they realized that ultimately it’s about ID, and so there is no point about this all? Or Was it to seek knowledge and then they realized (had revelation(s)) and so because it was pointless, they never wanted to undo the renouncement, or even if they came back to the “not renounced populous” it was to inform people about their revelation(s), i.e. to inform to people that it is pointless?]  

So, this explains HR to SR.

SR to HR

Sleep or death, in general no-consciousness, is not nothing, it’s not even nothing. It’s pure basis, purely basis itself i.e. basis in basis view, i.e. ID. When there is no-consciousness, there is nothing that defines nothing and not nothing, there exists no definition, there exists no basis of/for definition. At the end of everything/every-space, there always is ID. Beyond every space there always lurks ID. Within and beyond every space there always lurks basis.

The concept and hard experience of time and flow of time

This has