Something from Nothing

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 actually expressing it. But than again, as above, we cannot infer anything about it, not even this, this, this, …

Now, for convenience, I’m going to represent this infinite progression or regression or indefinability as Absolute Nothing or by the term ‘Infidefiception’. Also, to get anywhere I’m going to express nothing in terms of something. Besides, there is so much we can speak and infer about it, as one cannot infer any thing about it, which involves the very non-inference of the statement that “one cannot infer any thing about nothing”. Nothing involves contradiction, nothing is contradiction.

So, let’s begin, and talk about nothing, as speaking of nothing is speaking everything:

When we speak of nothing, we have a preconceived notion or thought or some kind of mental realization about it, like we do for any thing. So in true sense, we are not actually talking about nothing, but our representation and mental image of it in terms of something. But this applies again to this whole argument and all the statement, including this one. So we cannot fathom or conceive of nothing, simply because we are trying to conceive nothing which is impossible. Basically there’s no point talking about nothing, which I’m aware I’m doing.

Pointing at nothing is like trying to be aware of the present state and what we are experiencing, as ‘present state’, and also experience the state in which we are aware of the experience of some state which ‘was’ our present state. Any state A or experience of any state A is one state (or present state), namely state A, and the state or experience in which we experience that we were experiencing state A, is another state, let’s call this state or experience ‘B’.

Nothing cannot be realized in any way. But even this about nothing cannot be realized, and not even this, and this and so on… So , this again, as demonstrated above, leads us to infidefiception.

But, let’s move forward, as anything cannot, but also and thus, can be said about nothing. When it comes to nothing, any statement in regards to it and in general is false, and so the not-statement of that statement must be true. But then again, that statement is also false as far as nothing is concerned as it is something. So by that, the ‘first’ statement must be true then. So, the first statement is false i.e. second is true, first statement is true i.e. its not-statement – the second statement is false. Now, I’m only going to consider and limit myself to two statements here, for convenience, but I think we get the point and this can be expanded to any number of statements and to infinite number of statements. So any/every statement is true, any/every statement is false.

The detail discussion is presented in detail in other articles.

Whenever I see people referring to nothing, they claim something about it. For example, that it has no property or that it is this or that, some do not recognize that beneath what they claim as nothing lies the very law(s) of Nature. Everybody comes up with their own idea of nothing. But at the core the thinking about nothing is that, it is the absence of any thing. But what does that mean? What is the absence of any/every thing?

Now again, this has been discussed in other articles.

But the idea is that the absence of every thing cannot be something, or something else. Now, I refer to ‘thing’ as state or statement, for some reasons by which I think any thing can be called as a state or statement. In short its just because state or statement are the only existence or the things that exist and things must ‘exist’ with respect to itself to be called thing or existence.

Now the absence of every thing, i.e. the ‘Not’ or ‘Not-statement’ of all the statements, should either be some other statement not in that set, or something that’s not an statement at all i.e. not an statement in any sense, not an statement in absolute sense. But if statement are existences, and their non-existence is the ‘other’ or ‘not-statement of or with respect to that statement, then that thing must be state/statement or not-state/not-statement for it to exist or not exist. But if we are talking about the absence of each and every statement, then it cannot be statement, it cannot be not-statement, it cannot be existence/existent, it cannot be non-existence/non-existent, it cannot be thing, it cannot be no-thing.

Also provided that every/each/any statement is the ‘Not’ or ‘Not-statement’ of every/each/any other statement, and (by) that (any two or more) statements cannot be combined in any way and cannot be combined in any collection/set where they all are realized, and so there exists no notion of combination of states, the ‘absence of each and every statement’ is not ‘everything’ or the collection of all the statements.

The only options or choices are the statements, of which one is realized by that one which realizes it i.e. each state realizes itself. If the ‘absence of each and every statement’ is not state/statement, then what is it? The answer is: it is each statement, every statement (i.e. every each statement), Everything, which means it is each not-statement, none statement, Nothing. So the answer is, each and every statement i.e. Everything, each and every not-statement i.e. each not-statement and none statement i.e. Nothing.

It is the Quantum Superposition of States/Statements.

It is Nothing = Everything. It is Contradiction. It is no-Contradiction.

Reasonlessness or no-reason, lawlessness or no-law, is all and every and each Reason, is all and every and each law.

Reasonlessness or no-reason, lawlessness or no-law, is Nothing, is Everything, is Nothing = Everything.

Like with Everything, Nothing involves, is associated with and is infinity, infinite progression or regression, as it’s just negating things and is counting things, as is the case with Everything. Just as Everything cannot be realized, as infinity cannot be realized, Nothing cannot be realized. Also, in other words, things can be realized and only things can be realized i.e. the things that exist can, and by definition, be realized.

Now, as said earlier, when one refers to nothing, that comes with a lot of something, and that’s bound to. But, with nothing, whatever one says about it can be disputed, basically because of that whole lot of something or just something, and that includes this whole argument, which eventually leads to the infinite progression or regression i.e. to Infidefiception.

One may say, that something cannot come out of nothing because nothing has no property or that it violates the laws of conservation of something. This is simply the argument that because in experience with something it always appears that something comes out of something or of something else, the same applies for nothing. But, speaking of nothing, one is talking about beyond something, and thus beyond the experience of something, and thus beyond the implication or induction that something must come from something or any other implications or conclusions drawn from experience of something. So the rules that one applies for something cannot by definition be implied on nothing.

When speaking of nothing, one is not talking of something or anything. And because one is not speaking about thing(s), in general, one cannot impose same rules to that which is not a thing or not any thing or not anything. One has no idea about the beyond, because there is no beyond and the beyond is nothing, in other words there is nothing beyond. So beyond is no-beyond.

Now, one might say that one is not applying the same rule, but on the contrary one is not applying the same rules. So, the rule is that something comes from something. In case of nothing one is denying nothing exactly of that.

To say one is denying nothing of exactly those rules, that thing comes out of thing, of course is not true. The implication of ‘thing from thing’ rule when it come to nothing, and because is nothing, is that thing cannot emerge out of nothing. So the rule, ‘thing from thing’ (TFT), is very much applied when it come to nothing as well.

One cannot apply this rule when it comes to nothing, because one has no experience of nothing, and more specifically, one has no experience of application of ‘thing from thing’ (TFT) rule in context of nothing.

Now, what would the denial of TFT rule to nothing look like? If TFT rule is not applied to nothing, then something can come from nothing i.e. ‘thing from nothing’ (TFNT) rule would be applied to nothing.

But again, one cannot apply this rule when it comes to nothing, because one has no experience of nothing, and more specifically, one has no experience of application of ‘thing from nothing’ (TFNT) rule in context of nothing.

Also, when one applies this ‘thing from thing’ (TFT) rule to nothing, one is applying it to nothing i.e. one is not applying that rule to anything i.e. TFT rule is not applied at all. So when it comes to nothing, application of TFT rule (TFTR) is no application of TFTR.

Also, when one applies this ‘thing from nothing’ (TFNT) rule to nothing, one is applying it to nothing i.e. one is not applying that rule to anything i.e. TFNT rule is not applied at all. So when it comes to nothing, application of TFNT rule (TFNTR) is no application of TFNTR.

This again, leads to Infidefiception.

One cannot infer anything about nothing. One can infer nothing about/from nothing. But again even that’s cannot be inferred, not even this and therefore that can be inferred, not even this and therefore that can be inferred, not even this and therefore that can be inferred, so on…..

This again, leads to Infidefiception.

We can also put it this way:

One cannot infer anything about nothing. One can infer nothing about/from nothing. But again even that’s cannot be inferred, so one can infer something from nothing, anything from nothing, everything from nothing. But again even that’s cannot be inferred, not even this and therefore that can be inferred, not even this and therefore that can be inferred, not even this and therefore that can be inferred, so on…..

This again, leads to Infidefiception.

Now, because Nothing involves and is about infinity, involves and leads and is Infidefiception, and therefore, and because, nothing cannot be realized, anything, everything can, cannot, be said about nothing. To say any thing about nothing, is to not say at all (notice the contradiction), is to say each, every thing. So any thing, everything is, isn’t justified for Nothing. This again, as we can see, leads to infidefiception.

Nothing defines the limit of any thing, of everything. To say nothing does not, would be to claim that there is some thing that defines or is the limit/boundary. But, ‘Everything’ being infinite, cannot have boundary(s). So, there is no thing that is or defines the boundary of ‘Everything’.

But again, this can be disputed, when it comes to nothing, and again this leads to Infidefiception.

So, while one can say that nothing has no property and that nothing cannot give rise to some thing, one can say nothing has, nothing can. Property is a thing, but no-property is a thing as well. Of course, no-property is ‘Not’/’Not-statement’ of ‘property’ and therefore no-thing with respect to or relative to ‘property’, and vice-versa, but ‘no-property’ is ‘thing’ with respect to or relative to itself (i.e. no-property). But, when it comes to absolute nothing, this relativistic nothing does not apply.

Nothing is, isn’t, beyond description. In other words, each/every ‘thing’ is descriptible/definable, and therefore is ‘thing’. But again, beyond description is just beyond thing or each/every thing, and beyond ‘Everything’. And again, this refers to the discussion we had above; Nothing is all-descriptive and involves each, every description. We can see where this going again; to Infidefiception.

Now, let’s consider that nothing is unattainable/unrealizable:

So in Physics or the Physical or in reality, when one looks for nothing, one finds no nothing.

Some do not realize and mistakably claim and make mistake, that the what they are talking about is not nothing, and from that claim that something like particle-pairs, spacetime, and universe can arises from Nothing. Of course. there are fields, and laws of Physics, and all sorts of things. The nothing that is being spoken about is relative-nothing, not Absolute Nothing.

Instead the same story can be told in a different way:

The way people are trying to convince and propose that something can come out of nothing, I really think that’s not required. This apparent desperation to say that something can come out of nothing, maybe a desperate attempt to remove any scope of God or something like that.

But anyway, when we really look really ‘deep’ into reality, we really cannot find Nothing. This is because, as said many times before, Nothing, Absolute Nothing, is not reality, is not real. [Which by the way, obviously, also means that ‘things’ and each/every ‘thing’ is real.]

When we start removing things one by one, we get to the Quantum fields and laws. We cannot get rid of those, and those are the most basic most fundamental thing, which founds each/every thing.

[But, the question is, are those things? My idea or thinking is that they are not. As I’ve put out and put out above, they are not things or states/statements, they are Nothing, Everything, Nothing = Everything, Contradiction, Non-Contradiction, Existence – Non-Existence, Infidefiception, State[ment]verse. But, let’s return to the topic]

Removing the Physical laws and Quantum fields is impossible. The ‘process of negation or removal’ stops at that foundational thing. Reaching an absolute nothing, is far impossible. Absolute Nothing lies at infinity, and getting there far impossible, when in fact we cannot even elimination or negate the foundational fields and laws of Physics. Maybe we can and there is something more foundational and which is a more foundational basis, but when we cannot even get rid of this present foundational stuff (which by the way according to me is not ‘thing’ or ‘stuff’, but anyway), getting to absolute nothing, to absolute infinity is impossible. Not to imply that if we could get of it, we could somehow be more capable or eligible to get to absolute nothing.

[Of course it’s impossible to get to absolute nothing, to absolute infinity, but we cannot even say that. This is because to say or claim that, we need to ‘be incapable in attaining that infinity’. What does that even mean? To imply such, there must first exist that so called absolute infinite point, and one must be incapable of attaining it. That must be some existence or state. And if it is, then it (that sate) itself is capable of ‘attaining’ it, as it itself is and ‘always has’ attained itself; well, it does not even need to because it is itself. So it is not impossible that it not be attained, as it is attained by itself.

But it isn’t state or existence, it isn’t ‘thing’, it does not exist, it is non-existence, non-state. Well, to be precise, it is absolute non-existence, absolute non-state, absolute nothing. So there is no attaining or ‘being’ that state; that state cannot be itself because it isn’t state/thing; it doesn’t exist in ‘absolute sense’.

But again what does it mean to attain absolute nothing?

By the way, being dead or dead/death is similar and being ‘absolutely dead/non-existent is same. What does dead mean? It means nothing.

To attain absolute nothing is to not attain anything. But aren’t we already not attaining to anything? No. We are states, we are things. So, we are attaining to things, namely ourselves – the state that we are. So we are not attaining absolute nothing i.e. we are not absolute nothing. We are thing. To attain absolute nothing we should get rid of ‘ourselves’ – the state that we are, too. But when we do that, do we do that? Can we do that? If ‘we’, the state that we are, cease to exist, can we even know that we ‘ceased to exist’? Of course not.

First, how can we be not-we? To cease to exist, the state that we are should cease to exist. But with respect to or relative to that state itself, how can it not be? How can it not be itself. And when it is not that state (say A), then it must be the ‘Not’/’Not-state’ or ‘other’ state (say B), for which (B) that state (A) is the other state and does not exist. But any state for itself cannot not exist, cannot not be. One (any state) cannot cease to exist or be other state or ‘Not-state’ with respect to itself. So, any state cannot attain absolute nothing. Absolute nothing is not any state. It is all, each, every state, which also means, and as mentioned above, none, each not-state.

To ‘attain’ absolute nothing means to ‘attain’ no any state or none state, which then, by the whole initial arguments above is ‘attain’ each, every state.

Second, if we ceased to exist, that means that this thing that we refer to as ‘we’, is some other state, and not or the ‘Not’ of the state that we ‘earlier’ referred to as ‘we’. Now, in context of absolute ‘ceasing to exist’, this means attaining absolute nothing. Now, in context of absolute nothing, as discussed many times before, this means not some other state, not any state. It means to ‘attain’ no any state or none state, which then, by the whole initial arguments above is ‘attain’ each, every state (i.e. Quantum Superposition of states, Nothing = Everything, …, Infidefiception.

To ‘getting to/attain absolute infinity,’ is to ‘get to/attain absolute nothing’. And ‘attaining’ absolute nothing is Infidefiception. So, it is of course it’s impossible to get to absolute nothing, to absolute infinity, but we cannot even say that i.e. it is possible, … This leads to Infidefiception.]

Now, in the process of gradual negation or ‘removal’ of all the ‘stuff’, we get to limit/boundary or basis of the Quantum fields or Physical laws or something that is, at present and with respect to that level, the most fundamental level. But, let’s assume that we can do away with even this. Even then if everything else is removed, there is the observer itself that hasn’t been removed, i.e. we, the measurer/observer/experiencer or a frame of reference or a scale, aren’t removed and hasn’t vanished. So, there is still the experiencer/experience/measurer/measurement/definer/definition that hasn’t been removed. So, there still is some thing, and that is us – the state, that experience, that experiencer. But, if we get rid of ourselves, the scale that measures and defines, then there is not experience, there is no measurement, there is no realization, which is just Indefinition, rather it is Infidefiception, i.e. absolute nothing. Now, in the process of gradual negation or ‘removal’ of all the ‘stuff’, we get to limit/boundary or basis of the Quantum fields or Physical laws or something that is, at present and with respect to that level, the most fundamental level. But, let’s assume that we can do away with even this. Even then if everything else is removed, there is the observer itself that hasn’t been removed, i.e. we, the measurer/observer/experiencer or a frame of reference or a scale, aren’t removed and hasn’t vanished. So, there is still the experiencer/experience/measurer/measurement/definer/definition that hasn’t been removed. So, there still is some thing, and that is us – the state, that experience, that experiencer. But, if we get rid of ourselves, the scale that measures and defines, then there is not experience, there is no measurement, there is no realization, which is just Indefinition, rather it is Infidefiception, i.e. absolute nothing. Now, in the process of gradual negation or ‘removal’ of all the ‘stuff’, we get to limit/boundary or basis of the Quantum fields or Physical laws or something that is, at present and with respect to that level, the most fundamental level. But, let’s assume that we can do away with even this. Even then if everything else is removed, there is the observer itself that hasn’t been removed, i.e. we, the measurer/observer/experiencer or a frame of reference or a scale, aren’t removed and hasn’t vanished. So, there is still the experiencer/experience/measurer/measurement/definer/definition that hasn’t been removed. So, there still is some thing, and that is us – the state, that experience, that experiencer. But, if we get rid of ourselves, the scale that measures and defines, then there is not experience, there is no measurement, there is no realization, which is just Indefinition, rather it is Infidefiception, i.e. absolute nothing.

We can put this in other words:

If we get rid of ourselves, the scale that measures and defines, then there is not experience, there is no measurement, there is no realization. And therefore, absolute nothing cannot be experienced/defined/realized/described. But again, if that the case, one cannot even imply that about absolute nothing, not even this, not even this, … , which is just Indefinition, rather it is Infidefiception, i.e. absolute nothing.