Absolutism – Relation (addition)

What is the foundation of any relation between any thing/entity/existence A and any ‘other’ entity B (Not-A or NA)?

While studying, i just realized that brain memorises any thing or things better if it is memorized with some kind of relation or association between those things or between that thing and something else. Memorising things (any number of it) as independent things and memorising them independently with no association or relation, is difficult. It requires a lit of effort to memorize and hold on to that stuff or memory.

Everything that we can conceive of is in terms of relations. Every thing that we conceive of is in terms of ‘space’ or the idea or notion of space.

Space is nothing but a set of related points. Space is made up of points that are related by some relation. Depending on the relation between points or the constituting points, there are different spaces and different types of spaces.

Examples are : Hilbert space, Euclidean space, non-euclidean spaces, Minkowski space, the space of spaces, various mathematical spaces of various axioms and theorems, various space of logic, of reason, od religion, of societies and societal laws, various civilizational spaces, the laws, etc.

Why is anything related, or rather, why do things appear related? Why are things related?

Can we store things independently? Can we have a storage device, for example a computer or computer disc or memory, that can store things completely absolutely independently? Can we have independent things?

[Quantum Superposition is the answer. We can store independent states/existence/things by, or as, Quantum Superposition. For example, the Qbits. Qbits in quantum superposition of states can be used to store or for, or as, the device that can store things independently. But, though the degree of ‘independence’ increases, this idea or storage, is not the complete absolute independent storage (of states).

State[ment]verse is the the Complete Absolute Independent Storage (of states) {CAISS}. The states exist and don’t. Both (or all) the states exist and none does. In this sense, state[ment]verse, i.e. Nothing – Everything, i.e. Nothing = Everything, i.e. Contradiction, i.e. Infidefiception, is the CAISS, and (therefore and also) is not, and is, and is not, and is, is not, and so on….. This is Infideficetption. So, the CAISS is No-CAISS (NCAISS) i.e. NCAISS is the actual CAISS. There is no CAISS, and there is. There is no CAISS means there is CAISS. The NCAISS is the CAISS; only in the State[ment]verse sense or picture or conceivement though, not it usual conventional traditional sense or worldview. In general, not in any thinking other than the state[ment]verse sense, i.e. only in State[ment]verse, or in state[ment] sense. Other sense or worldviews are just the special cases of the state[ment]verse ‘view’ or ‘sense’. The Ultimate Absolute sense is the Absolute Nonsense. More on this later …..]

The involvement of ‘s’, denoting plural, in ‘things’, is itself an indication or reflection or representation of relation.

Things means more than one thing, which itself means that there is a thing and the thing that’s not that thing, i.e. the ‘Not’ or Not-statement or the ‘other’ of or with respect to or relative to that thing. A is not B, or A is the ‘other’ with respect to B, i.e. A is the ‘Not’ or Not-statement of B. A is Not-B i.e. A is NB.

A and B are separate. A does not exist for or with respect to B, B does not exist for or with respect to A. A is the nonexistence of B, B is the Nonexistence of A.

A and B are ‘different’, they are the ‘other’ of or with respect or relative to each other. But the term ‘relative‘ indicates, or appears so that, there is a relation even in no relation. What is going on?

Actually, the viewpoint or frame of reference that an observer takes in the consideration of [A, B], and anything associated with [A, B]; indicated by the square bracket, is a ‘third’ frame of reference: The frame of reference or State/Statement, that has information of [A, B]. This frame or state is not of A or Not-A (NA), is NB, and is, like any state A, like any state B, an independent state. We can just call this C. C has nothing to do with A, B. This [A, B], the information [A, B], that can be identified as C, is absolutely independent of A, of B.

Now, it should come to realization that now the observer, or whoever is reading this and has come this far, views or observes (or is informed of or has information) or experiences the state that is about or associated with, or that is, [A, B, C]. This state is nothing but ‘another’ state D. Like before, this state is Absolutely independent of ‘other’ state A, of B, of C, of E, and so on.

The relation in no relation indicated or implied by the term(s) or phrase(s), ‘relative’ or ‘with respect to’ or ‘of’ or ‘for’, is nothing but due to the information in some ‘other’ state, it is due to the experience of that state/experience.

For example, the relation [A, B] is due to or is the experience/state C in above example. Similarly, the relation [A, B, C] is due to or is the experience/state D in above example. And so on…..

For example, the relation that one, say for example the ‘present’, perceives or conceives or experiences with the past event/state, is due to or is the information content on the ‘present’ state, or the information/information content that is that ‘present’ state. The experience of that state, or that state, is, or what defines, the relation.

The ‘past’ or any state is the ‘Not’ or Not-state or Not-statement of ‘present’ or of any state. Just as in A, B.

At the fundamental level there is no relation, there is Nothing.

At the fundamental level there, or the most fundamental level, is no relation, is Nothing.

At the most fundamental level there, or the most fundamental level: is Nothing, is Everything, is Nothing = Everything, Contradiction, Infidefiception, State[ment]verse.

At the (most) fundamental level, there is no relation, there is relation-no-relation, there is Nothing, there is Contradiction, there is Infidefiception, there is State[ment]verse.

The most fundamental level, is no relation, is relation-no-relation, is Contradiction, is Nothing, is Infidefiception, is State[ment]verse.

The relation or notion or sense of relation is about, is due to, or is just the expression or representation of, Absolutism. It is about Permanent, or Uniform, or Immortal, or Absolute, Existence.


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