Existence with no Justification/Arbitrary Existence – follow up #

When there is no Basis for any A, or in other words, when Nothing is the Basis of some A, then the ‘Not’ or ‘Not-statement of A (i.e. NA or B or C or D or any…) is justified, A is justified. Since there is no justification for A, B or any NA, is justified.

But that’s the thing : With NOTHING as the Basis, A-NA is justified. A and NA are non-existence with respect to each other. So, A counters NA, NA counters A.

In arguments involving any two statement, two ‘Nots’ or Not-statements i.e. statement/state A, and statement B (i.e. NA), if there is no justification for any of them, that is, if Nothing is the justification for A, Nothing is the justification for B, then A counters B (B’s existence), B counters A (A’s existence). The conclusion is Nothing. There is decision. There is no choice of, either A or B. There is no decidability. There is no notion of decidability. There is no notion of ‘no notion of decidability. And so on ….. This is Nothing. This is Indefiception. This is A-NA (A-B). This is Infidefiception.

In case of what exists, say A exists, then A is the justification for A, A is the Basis with respect to A itself. Nothing is the justification for A. Now, it depends on the approach, whether to consider A as A’s justification/Basis or Nothing as A’s Basis. The analogy with the idea in calculus of Left hand/Right hand approach or limit or approaching the limit to a certain point, can be considered.

It’s about whether one approaches the limit/border/boundary of this space/state called A from within A or from without. In the within-approach, A is the Basis/fundamental. In the without-approach, Nothing is.

So, if seen from and argued with the existence of A as Basis of A (the within approach), which any existence is with respect to itself, then any thing that exists is justified with respect to itself and the ‘Not’ or ‘other’ of that existence is not justified. This is just the implication of: For A, A exists, and A being the nonexistence of NA, NA does not exist.

So, only A exists. There is no notion of ‘only’ as well, no notion of ‘no notion of “only”, and so on….. This is Infidefiception.

So, in case of ‘Induction’ or ‘Law of Induction’, what exists in or as particular existence A, does not exist in any other existence. This is because any ‘other’ existence is the ‘Not’ with respect to A, it is NA, it is non-existence of A. So, at any state, at any event, any moment, what exists, only exists, what exists is the only existence, and whatever existence exists can be vouched for. Yes, that existence, say any A, of course cannot be vouched or asserted with respect to any other existence (any NA) and vice-versa. But that existence, say A, can be vouched for with respect to that existence A itself.

Now, in case of ‘beyond’ (of or with respect to) any particular state/existence A, and in case of expansion, or Absolutism or degree of Absolutism, of any existence A beyond it (A), Nothing is the Basis of A. So, any Not-A (NA) is justified. So, A-NA/Nothing/Everything is the Basis of A, of NA.

Also, beyond any existence A itself, or the approach of or from ‘beyond’ or ‘without’, A is justified, any structure is justified.

NOTHING Justifies EVERYTHING. NOTHING is the Basis of EVERYTHING. NOTHING is EVERYTHING.

With Nothing, A is true, A isn’t true, B is true, B isn’t true, C is true, C isn’t true, D is true, D isn’t true, and so on ….. This is Infidefiception, this is NOTHING, this is EVERYTHING, this is NOTHING = EVERYTHING, this is State[ment]verse.

With Nothing, A exists, A exists not, B exists, B exists not, C exists, C exists not, D exists, D exists not, and so on ….. This is Infidefiception, this is NOTHING, this is EVERYTHING, this is NOTHING = EVERYTHING, this is State[ment]verse.

Consider any A, any NA (any B). Nothing is, in general, A-NA, is Contradiction, is Infidefiception, is State[ment]verse


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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