CAISS or ARISC – follow up 2

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 no information at all.

Before considering State[ment]verse-Storage (SVS), let’s discuss (Quantum) Superposition Storage (QSS). Consider a qubit that has two eigenstates; something like [A,B] or [Spin up, Spin down] or any [A,B]. So, when we make a (classical) measurement, or measurement in general, we realize A, we realize B, there are no other choices or possibilities. Of course increasing the number of qubits, each with 2 eigenstates, will increase the possibilities or number of possible (eigen) states by same amount as is the case with classical bits. But, if we count the superposition of (classical) states, and refer to them as Quantum ‘states’, then different from the ‘n’ power of 2, where n is the number of qu-/bits, the number of ‘states’ is exponential of exponential of n.

I’ve mentioned quantum states as states within the single quotation, i.e. as ‘state’, because of the following:

Actually quantum ‘states’ are not states i.e. not classical states i.e. not realizable in a sense that classical actual states are realizable. Quantum states can only be realized as an ensemble of classical states, which by the way is not ‘realization’ but an ensemble of realizations. In other words, this quantum/superposition or quantum ‘states’ do not exist. One cannot, or it cannot be observed or measured or realized or experienced as state. A state or classical state or eigenstate is a quantum or unit or single complete/whole or ‘bundle’ of existence. It cannot be divided into parts. It is the smallest bit of existence. State/statement, which can simply be represented as state[ment], is the only existence. Any state[ment] A is the only existence, and is only true, with respect to itself. No ‘other’ state[ment] exists or is true for or with respect to itself, as the ‘other’ state[ment] is the ‘Not’ or ‘Not-state[ment] of or with respect to that state[ment] A. So, any (classical or eigen) state, with respect to itself, is the only existence, is the only state/realization or experience. And any other (classical or eigen) state, with respect to itslef, does not exist, as it is non-existence/non-state/Not-state/Not-state[ment] for or with respect to that state. Therefore, any eigenstate is the only existence or state that exists, the quantum superposition is not state.

Quantum superposition is the Quantum superposition of states or existences, i.e. existence = non-existence, i.e. existence-non-existence, i.e. nothing = everything, i.e. nothing-everything.

It is existence-non-existence, it is Indefinition, it is not ‘it’, Quantum superposition is NOTHING = EVERYTHING, NOTHING – EVERYTHING, it is INFIDEFICEPTION.

Now let’s return to the QSS:

As [A,B], we have a superposition of states A, B. If we look at states, as they are the only things that ‘exist’; then it’s A, it’s B. (There’s an intention here why I haven’t said something along the lines, “It’s either A or B”)


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