Dhiresh

In calculating the energy of single and many electron atoms we use various methods. We also have the experimental results of the energies of these atoms at various levels. Exploiting these facts, a new model of electron-electron interaction, and thus of atoms, is prepared, and a two-way street of verifying the model and calculating the energy of atomic levels is conducted in this paper. The approach that’s been taken is to consider the interaction between any two electrons as “observer-observed” measurement phenomenon between them. So the interaction between them, and with respect to them, is just a classical realization of each other. For any  external  entity,  not  interacted  with  the  system,  for  example,  this  electron-electron interaction is non-classical aspect of the quantum mechanical phenomena or  encounter. Entity external to the interacting system, depending on the initial state, has therefore, the picture of t...

State[ment]verse, if it can be, can be analogically, thought as a storage disc which is infinitely full, finitely full, finitely empty, infinitely empty, has infinite space, has finite space, has no space, contains infinite spaces/states/statements, contains finite space/state/statement, contains no space/state/statement. Not only this, this disc exists, doesn’t exist, …. This is Infidefiception But even this analogy is incorrect, is false, is true, is false, is true, ….. This is Infidefiception This is state[ment]verse ARISC   (Absolute Reduced Instruction Set Computer): State[ment]verse  is  ARISC   (Absolute Reduced Instruction Set Computer)  or  NISC (No Instruction Set Computer)  or  IISC (Infinite instruction Set Computer) . NOTHING = EVERYTHING, NOTHING ≠ EVERYTHING, This is Infidefiception This is State[ment]verse State[ment]verse-Storage Now, consider a storage device that can store infinitely, i.e. infinite information, as it is storing ...

Essentially, I’ll be talking about nothing. This should mean that I should not be talking about anything, and should not be talking at all. So, I must jut leave or shut up or shut writing. But would that then also be doing nothing? It’s a useless attempt to talk about nothing because talking about nothing is talking about nothing, which we have no clue what that means. Just saying that it just means to not speak of nothing at all, might not the case, because not talking about it isn’t nothing but again one cannot even ay that as that would be not nothing, and again would not be, and would be, and not, and so on. But having said all that I already am talking about it, but am I though? So, I hope you see the difficulty or impossibility here. But then again one cannot infer that too, and not even this, and this, and so on… But, I’m making a video and I must do something, besides, nothing cannot ‘actually’ or ‘truely’ be expressed. We can only do it in terms of something, which is not actu...

In Einstein’s theory of relativity, spacetime is relative. The limit of this idea is the constancy of spacetime corresponding to the constancy of the speed of light. In other words, the relativity of spacetime is limited/bounded/founded by the constancy/non-relativity of it. But this limit, this constancy of spacetime, this spacetime frame, which maybe called the limit spacetime frame, does not exist. I.e. photons do not exist, in the sense that this limit-/photon-spacetime frame does not exist, at least not in this universe or state(s). For photons, space, time, spacetime, does not exist. A photon cannot experience spacetime, spacetime cannot experience photon; one does not exist for the other. So, the relative spacetime, or spacetime frame, is bounded by the absence/dissolution of frame or the notion of spacetime frame itself, i.e. by no spacetime frame, or no-frame. In the absolute theory of relativity, i.e. the State[ment]verse theory, the existence is relative. So, the limit of an...

So, consciousness is subjective experience. It is a relative reality that exists for itself only. No two consciousness or conscious states can exist, just as is true of, or for, any other states. No two ‘different’ or ‘distinguishable’ states can exist, with respect to, or for, each other, just like any ‘two’ ‘different’ state[ments]. Now, let’s take a primitive approach to this topic of consciousness: The question, or as often referred to as the ‘hard problem’, is that how can something like consciousness arise from something so ‘not conscious’ as some collection of neurons and chemicals and some patterns of electrical firing that takes place, and something to which we refer to as brain? If we take a State[ment]verse approach, there is not much to explain, but let’s just take a simple approach to this. Some say consciousness is fundamental, some say it is emergent, some may take other approaches. What is clear is that, it is subjective experience of anything that might or might not be...