Understanding Completeness – Incompleteness, and the reason behind it, through State[ment]verse

In any framework or structure of ‘consistency’, we, at the limit of this structure encounter inconsistency. At this edge, we encounter the ‘consistency or completeness’ ‘choice’.

This is the case, fundamentally, at the edge of any ‘Space’, be it Logic, reasoning, Mathematics, Physics or any other Sciences, religion, anything, any structure, any space.

In any given structure or space, every thing in or element of that space/set, denoted by the points in that space, has relation between them that is consistent throughout that space upto the very boundary or border of that space.

In the theory of state[ment]verse, every state/statement has ‘Not’ or Not-state(s)/statement(s). Not-statement of any state or statement is the complement of the statement under consideration. And by (the theory of) state[ment]verse, every and any state/statement is the ‘Not’ or ‘Not-state/statement’ of every and any other state/statement. Any state is the ‘other’ of any other state. Any state is the ‘other’ of any other state, and of which it is the ‘other’/’rest’. Any state is the ‘Not’ of any other state, and of which it is the ‘Not’.

Any statement is the Contradiction, and is contradictory, with respect to its ‘Not’/Not-statement. Any Not-statement is the Contradiction, and is contradictory, with respect to any its statement. Any statement is the Contradiction, and is contradictory, with respect to any other or with respect to the ‘other’ statement.

State[ment]verse has states/statements as the unit.

Each state is the space. Each state is the space or the entire universe of existence for or with respect to or relative to that state itself. It is Everything with respect to itself. (And also if you follow other articles, it is Nothing with respect to itself). It is all that exists with respect to itself.

Now, state is its own Basis. It defines itself. Every structure in Mathematics or Logic or any field, can be considered a space or state/statement. The combination of statements or collection of them can be considered and is just another, maybe very long, statement. But it is statement nonetheless.

So, that structure or space/set of things/spaces corresponds just another state/statement in the state[ment]verse.

So, any structure or space or state is its own basis, its own universe, or space of existence. Just as any state has ‘Not’, every structure has ‘Not’ or the ‘other’, with respect to it, and of which it is the ‘Not’.

Now, Contradiction is the or defines the border of any space/state. The statement and its ‘Not’ are contradictory to each other. One is the nonexistence of the respective/relative other. One exists with respect to itself, and does not relative to the other, and vice-versa.

Now, the complete picture is the statement/state — Not-statement/-state. But this involves a statement and its ‘Not’/Contradiction. In general, the ‘Complete’ is statement — Not-statement, is Contradiction. In general, the ‘Complete’ is existence — Non-existence, is Contradiction.

Also, the justification or reason or explanation for any state/statement, a brute fact, is presented by the ‘Not-statement’, by the statement — Not-statement, by the Complete, by the Contradiction:

[ LINK ]

Also, because any statement A is the ‘Not’ of any other statement NA or (call it) B or C or any, one is the nonexistence/non-experience of the other. So, A cannot ever ‘know’ or experience B, and vice-versa. So, though B is the justification for A (or for C or D or any), A cannot know B, B cannot Know A. Similar is for any statement(s). The justification for any A is A-NA (or A-B or A-C or so on). Though any A-B (or C-B or A-D or so on or any) is the justification for any A (or for C or D or any), A (or for C or D or any) cannot know A-B (or C-B or A-D or so on or any).

In general, though any A-B is the justification for any A, A cannot know A-B. And though any A-B is the justification for any B, B cannot know A-B.

This is why though a statement in any space/structure, or that entire space as a statement, though has existence i.e. is true i.e. is ‘Brute Fact’, it’s justification cannot be known.

That is why, and therefore, “A statement though is true, but has no proof.” Or, therefore, “There is a true statement that has no proof.” Or, therefore, “A statement though true, might not have a proof”. Or, therefore, “An unprovable true statement exists”. Or, therefore, “A statement though true, might not have a proof within that framework or structure”. Or, you can phrase it any way.


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