STATE[-][MENT[-]]VERSE i.e. STATE[MENT]VERSE (Incomplete)
The physical dynamism/dynamics/mechanics of reality and the dynamics of nature itself and the laws of the dynamics independent of and anything other than as information of state, it is argued, is questionable and even has no significance and is redundant, as there exists no actual dynamics at the fundamental level, much like which is indicative in classical Zeno’s paradox, independent of state.
Putting forward the argument that the only entities are the states, since, and that, they are the only realizable entity, state(s) is presented and taken to be the fundamental entity and defined to be a set of information(s), which eventually is a piece of information itself, with information defined as a mathematical statement. Hence, asserting that any physical entity/property, including any dynamism, is nothing but an information/state or a part of that information/state. Mathematical statement here refers to any random statement. Any state is regarded as a “unique” set of, or say, strand of information(s), which, again, can be inferred as a piece of information.
Further, it is proposed that these informations/states constitute a state (information) – space, which again is/can be represented as a piece of information. State-space, defined, is a good old quantum mechanical state-space, which is a complex Hilbert space in which the possible instantaneous states of the system may be described by unit vectors, however, with some alterations and (via which) generalizations to this Dirac formalism and to this definition of state and of state-space. It is argued that the definitions of state and state-space in Dirac formalism deduces to the, as argued, more general definitions presented here.
Using these definitions of information, state and state-space, which as argued is more general and that Dirac formalism deduces to it, a new world-view to the physical reality is presented and how various physical entity/property in this picture gets displayed.
Also, an idea/argument that classical-physical and classical-mathematical contradictions/mutual exclusiveness reduce to truth statements, i.e. all mutually exclusive entities are realized, and possibly the contradicting/mutually exclusive entities are all identical, though different, i.e. mutually exclusive though not. This follows from the adaptation of definitions of mutual exclusivity/orthogonality/contradictory, which in turn is deduced from the quantum state-space definition presented here.
INTRODUCTION
Explaining the physical world involves interpreting the “physicality“ in the definitive paradigm of the brain (at least of human brain) —mathematics, more precisely, classical mathematics/logic. The what and why queries related to the physical world involves and leads to the how questions—the mechanics and dynamics, of the physical world. Arguably, the “how-questions” apparently can be regarded as the primary, the only significant queries and queries that are equivalent to and, possibly, identical to what and why questions.
However, the how questions involving the physical dynamism and the physical dynamics itself and the laws associated with it (i.e. the dynamical models), though quite vivid and convincing, if brought into detailed consideration and examined, cannot be realized but only as the information of state. By state, quantum-state is implied and quantum-state is taken, here, as the fundamental and general definition of state. But now we may ask what information is and what is quantum-state? Consider state-space:
Conventional quantum state-space is a complex Hilbert space in which the possible instantaneous states of the system may be described by unit vectors. (Cohen-Tannoudji, 1977)
Now, the dictionary definition of information is that: “Information is the resolution of uncertainty; it is that which answers the question of “what an entity is” and thus defines both its essence and nature of its characteristics. Information relates to both data and knowledge, as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of a concept.” (Merriam-Webster)
Information according to classical information theory, specifically Shannon information (i.e. information in communication theory), relates not so much to what is being communicated, as to what could be communicated. “That is, information is a measure of one’s freedom of choice when one selects a message.” In communication theory, in more definite terms, “the amount of information is defined, in the simplest cases, to be measured by the logarithm of the number of available choices.”
Consider number of choices/possibilities, with respective probability of being chosen being . Information in this set (say) of possibilities is then given by:
(E.Shannon & Weaver, 1964)
In Shannon’s communication theory, information is about the degree of freedom that any set/system has, i.e. the information (contained) in the set/system is about how many possible states the system can (potentially) be in.
For example, consider a set of six possibilities (say) a die: , each with equal probability of 1/6. And another set of two possibilities (say) a coin or a binary bit: , each with equal probability ½.
Now, if we take any set, say , then the only Universe/possibility is this set. Therefore, by definition, the only thing that exists is this set. Hence, the only thing that “is” is this set of six possibilities. Now, this set, is defined and is about the six possibilities: . Hence the only existence that “is” are these six possibilities, hence the probability of set is 1, which simply means that the only entity that “is” is set .
Now, since, by definition, each possibility has equal probability and, also by definition, the probability of is 1. So, the probability of each possibility, i.e. the share/contribution of existence (truth value T/1) and being, of each possibility must produce a total existence value/probability of being, of , equal to 1.
Hence the two definitions:
- Only exists, i.e. probability of is 1. And
- The existence of each possibility of has equal share on existence of .
Along with the definition that states: , where are the respective probabilities of possibilities , and definition, , gives .
Similarly for set , .
[NOTE: It is important to note that this all is due to the definitions of set along with some other definitions which can be put together as a set of these definitions.]
Now, since set , compared to set , has more possibilities, i.e. since can be in more possible states (by definition) it requires more information to describe/define this set. It is more difficult to guess its state.
Any particular guess made, about any set/system, the existence of any guessed state/possibility contributes less to the existence of set compared to the contribution due to existence of states that is exclusive of the guess, provided that the set has number of possibilities more than two.
For set of only two possibilities, the contribution is equal. For set of only one possibility, the only contribution to the set’s existence is due to that possibility, hence the existence of its possibility is its existence. Hence, there is no difference between the set and the set element.
Now any set can be reduced to the set of elements/possibilities, call it guess set with possibilities , for guessed state, and , for state(s) exclusive of guessed state . can be written as , for guessed state being true and by , for guessed state being false. i.e. . States may contribute to by any amount, i.e. these states may share any value of probability from total unit probability.
Now, since set is a set of six possibilities, the guessed state has contribution 1/6 and the complement set of states that is exclusive of the guessed possibility has contribution 5/6 in D’s existence. Hence for , is such that probability of , , and probability of , . Hence any particular guess made, has the highest probability of being FALSE/wrong (i.e. ) of and lowest probability of being TRUE/correct (i.e. ), where is a state that the set (here set ) actually assumes.
Hence, for set , more pieces of information is required to completely define/describe it, compared to set . Hence, more pieces of information is required to be absolutely confident about, i.e. to absolutely specify, set/set’s actual state of being , as the possibilities/states/elements of the set increases. The more the possible states, the more is the information-pieces required to obtain information about set’s actual state of being. It is required, with the increase in the possibilities of a set, to know more about the set’s current status to know set’s realized state.
For example: In case of set , i.e. say on rolling the die, suppose we ask a question, “is it in state 1?” and the answer is “NO”. Now we know/have gained information that set hasn’t assumed state “1”. And we also have an information, by definition of , that “set must then be in one of the states other than state “1”.”. This information is due to, or can be considered as, two informations, one that states, “set can only assume one state when it assumes/chooses a state.” And the other that states, “ set has possibilities {1,2,3,4,5,6}.”, which both is present/exists as information that is set ’s definition.
So, we have two pieces of information: “NO-1” and “definition”. However, we often take information-“definition” for granted, hence we have one piece of information: “NO-1”. Set ’s state of choice isn’t known yet. So, we proceed with next question, “ is it in state 2?” and say the answer is “NO”. So we have two pieces of information: “NO-1” and “NO-2”. But the actual state of set isn’t known yet. Again we proceed and ask, “is it state 3?” and the answer is “NO”. So we have information: “NO-1”, “NO-2”, “NO-3”. We proceed similarly and acquire information: “NO-1”, “NO-2”, “NO-3”, “NO-4”. Finally we accumulate information: “NO-1”, “NO-2”, “NO-3”, “NO-4”, “NO-5”, which is equivalent to information set: “NO-1”, “NO-2”, “NO-3”, “NO-4”, “NO-5”, “YES-6”. This is due to the information that states, “when all possibilities but some are exhausted, the only possibilities are the remaining possibilities.”, which is involved in the definition, specifically, due to the information that states, ” when all possibilities but one is exhausted, the only possibility is that one remaining possibility.”—- “[IN-1]”, which is involved in the definition.
This set of information, [“NO-1”, “NO-2”, “NO-3”, “NO-4”, “NO-5”] or [“NO-1”, “NO-2”, “NO-3”, “NO-4”, “NO-5”, “YES-6”], or information [“NO-1” & “NO-2”& “NO-3”& “NO-4”& “NO-5”& “YES-6”] or [“NO-1” & “NO-2”& “NO-3”& “NO-4”& “NO-5”& “[IN-1]”], completely specifies the current state of set , which, here, is 6. In general, information [“NO- ” & “NO- ”& “NO- ”& “NO- ”& “NO- ”& “[IN-1]”] completely specifies any current state of set .
We could argue that the set of information, for example, , [“NO-1”, “YES-2”] or , [“NO-1”, “NO-2”, “YES-5”] could specify the state of set , namely state-2 and state-5 respectively. However, this does not represent the maximum possible information content of set i.e. maximum possible information required to specify any realized state of set , i.e. maximum potential of set to keep its state undefined.
Information, corresponding to a set, relates to the number of non-redundant steps that is to be taken (questions to be asked) from a maximal uncertainty (minimal information) to minimal uncertainty (maximal information) through gradual decrease in uncertainty and increase in information such that the path is the longest (extremum) i.e. number of steps taken is maximum i.e. involves all the possibilities of the set.
Information content in a set/system relates to how much the set’s assumed state is uncertain i.e. to the probability of state exclusive of the guessed state i.e. to how much information, that specifies the system’s state, is missing.
In case of set , the maximal uncertainty/missing information on guessing any possibility is or is related to , and minimal information that is available is or is related to .
In case of set , the maximal uncertainty on guessing any possibility is or is related to , and minimal information is or is related to .
Set can be expressed as a 3-bit binary set . Thus the information content in set , i.e. possibilities of set can be expressed in binary terms by a subset of set .
OR, by a subset of set . OR any binary set.
Here is for bit-a unit of piece of information, and is for 3 bits. Here is a set of two possibilities 0 and 1.
Now to specify or obtain information that completely defines the assumed state of set , only information regarding each bit values of the 3-bits is required. Hence, we can proceed and ask, “is the 1st bit 1?” and say the answer is no, then we have information: . We further ask question, “is the 2nd bit 0?” and say the answer is yes, then we have information: . We further ask question, “is the 3rd bit 1?’ and say the answer is yes, then we have a complete information: , which completely specifies the realized state of set . Hence the information corresponding to set is 3-bits .
Set can efficiently be expressed as set (say) , which has three possibilities only, unlike set which has six. Each three possibilities is a bit because each possibility has two possibility of either being 0 or 1, i.e. of being True or False, i.e. , where is for True and is for False. For example, consider . Here, possibility and and . So, asking whether possibilities are True or False and suppose get answer , we get , which specifies the state of set . So, acquiring information about each bit defines state of set .
Now, we cannot reduce set any further to set with smaller number of possibilities, given that we agree on what number is and how one number relates to the another, i.e. on the definition of number, and on definitions of set, and every mathematical rules/definitions used here in this context.
We can call this set a generalized set, which shares its property/concept with generalized co-ordinate (system).
Generalized co-ordinate: Generalized co-ordinates are a set of convenient co-ordinates used to describe the configuration of a particular system, such that the number of independent generalized co-ordinates defines the number of degrees of freedom of the system with dependent generalized co-ordinates having some dependency with each other as a result of additional constraints. With generalized co-ordinates and constraints , the difference between the number of generalized co-ordinates used and the number of constraints/constraint equations is equal to the total degrees of freedom of the system.
(Amirouche, 2005)
Now, since set cannot further be reduced to set of lesser possibilities than set , which defines set , set can be regarded as generalized set for describing set of possibilities such as set , with not only independent possibilities but also with least independent possibilities/information that describe sets like .
In Shannon’s theory, however, each possibility is about the potential gain of information. For example, consider coin, which is a set of two possibilities: . The information that can be gained or the information that is required, i.e. information that is to be generated, in order to describe this set is maximum (i.e. ), provided that the coin is unbiased. However, it is less than for, for example, set die which has 6 possibilities: : . Hence the maximum potential gain in information corresponding to set .
Now consider a coin that is biased for head such that it has head on both its sides. So, the only information available is that: “It has both sides heads”. Hence this set has only one possibility, i.e. . Hence the uncertainty for this set is zero and certainty that the outcome is head is 1. Hence, according to Shannon, there is no any gain in information from this set. There is only one information (working as a constraint), which is its definition that describes this set, and no any other information is required. Hence there is no gain/generation in/of information: . However, this set has a piece of information that defines it, which is taken for granted, and is responsible for its existence like it is with any other set and its definition. Therefore, it is argued that the information corresponding to this set is non-zero, and this holds true for any set.
Now, putting forward following arguments:
In case of set , for which one single information is required/is to be gained in order to define the set’s acquired state completely, the information that’s gained is about the state, which is either or . So, information gained is 1. However, this also involves information that defines set , which involves information that states the mutual exclusiveness/independence of the two possibilities & , which we take for granted and so on.
Now, in case of set , suppose that the set is not defined, similar to realized state incase of set . Then say we define this set as . On defining this set, information, which is set’s definition, is acquired, realizing the set and bringing it to existence. Thus the information gained in defining this set is 1. Now, putting this in the context of Shannon’s theory, we could say that set can have any infinite i.e the set can be any set, with for example set as one of the possibilities. We will come to this later.
Information, it is defined, is not just about the degree of freedom that any set/system has, i.e. the information (contained) in the set/system is not just about how many possible states the system can (potentially) be in. Information relates to the very definition of the set/system, that brings it to existence, definitions of the states and every definitions/statements being considered, that the definition of/statement about the set incorporates. What is implied here is that with every bit of information we can associate a statement that defines that bit of information i.e. that brings into existence that bit of information.
But what is the number of pieces of information
*******************************************************************************
However, it is not necessary that a statement correspond to a conventional bit (i.e. a bit defined by Shannon). For example, consider statement:
“Set .”
This statement defines a certain set and therefore corresponds to a conventional bit.
On the other hand, consider statement:
“Set .”
This statement defines a certain set of two possibilities and also defines what possibility the set has assumed/realized. Hence, this statement involves two conventional bits, one that defines the set and the other that defines the realized possibility.
If a (single) bit/bit of information is defined to denote a (single) statement, then the correspondence between a (single) statement and a (single) bit is mutual and both ways.
It can be noticed here that, what Shannon defines as “gain in a bit of information”, i.e. gain in a conventional bit of information, corresponds to the difference between the two statements, in this case the above two statements.
This gives a clue how Shannon’s (conventional) definition of bit and the statement-definition of bit is different (NOTE), and also gives a clue about how statement(s) is viewed in conventional way of thinking about them, or in conventional logic (NOTE, Find reference if possible), and how that differs from idea of statement presented here.
The idea of statement/state presented here is that the only entity (fundamental) is the state/statement. Any entity previously/conventionally conceived as the “combination” of statements, is also a single statement-piece and not a “combination” and/or “non-combination”. It is also a quanta like previous/conventional individual statements which is a non-combination of conventional individual statements. Conventionally there are combined and non-combined statements. In the idea of statement here, there are statements and that’s it.
Further analyzing this:
Conventionally: Consider statements “A” and statement “B”. Then statement “A & B” is the combination of statement “A” and statement “B”, i.e. statement “A & B” is related to statement “A” and statement “B”.
In statement theory presented here: Consider statement “A” and statement “B”. Then, there is statement “A & B” and that’s it. Combination, no-combination, relation, no relation, etc isn’t considered – st.(statement) 1. Even st.1 is not considered – st.2. Even st.2 is not – st.3. Even st.3 is not – st.4. Even st.4 is not – st.5. Even st.5 isn’t –st.6. And so on… There is no combination, no-combination, relation, no relation, – st.(statement) 1. Not even st.1 – st.2. Not even st.2 – st.3. Not even st.3 – st.4. Not even st.4 – st.5. Not even st.5 –st.6. And so on… There is statement “A & B” and that’s it. Even mentioning the phrase “and that’s it” is a statement in itself. Therefore, to be precise, there is statement “A & B”. What is meant and emphasized here is that, because statement is the fundamental entity in the statement theory presented here, any further than any statement is just a statement in itself. To avoid any confusion and for convenience we will identify any statement of concern within “ ”.
[There are three ways of, call it, statement logic.
- In which: not every statement is the not of statement A, and only one statement is the not of A, which is called not A. So, not all statements are mutually exclusive of every other. This is conventional logic. Within this lies the concept of a number and it’s negative.
- In which: every statement is a not of every other statement. So, A is not of B, not C, not D… and C is not A, not B, not E… and K is not 0, not R, not A… and so on… So, each statement is mutually exclusive of the other statement. Each statement is the complement of the other.
- In which: If there is statement A then there is statement A and that’s it. For statement B, there is statement B and that’s it. For statement C there is statement C and that’s it. And so on…
[Nothing, which we now days refer to absolute nothing, is Everything. Here’s how:]
Now consider state[ment](s), each the ‘Not’ of the other. Each state[ment] ‘orthogonal to’/independent of each other, for example, the Eigenstates of any quantum mechanical operator, i.e. the classical/realizable states.
Since state[ment] defines space, time, spacetime, and/or everything, the state, for itself, is all there is. There is no “between states”. These states do not constitute or form a space. Here the term ‘space’ is used here as a general term to refer any space of existence, be it space or time or spacetime or spacetime(s) or multiverse(s), multi-multiverse(s), and so on.
So, there is just state[ment](s).
Do they exist at same location in space? Because state is what defines space and as per the discussion above that there is no ‘between’ i.e. Nothing, Nothing can be said about the ‘location’, not even this, not even this, not even this, so on … this is Infidefiception. By this, everything can be said of this, even this, even this, even this, even this, so on… This is Infidefiception. State[ment] is the quantized set of all the information there is. So no information is external to the state(s), and no information is “in between”; there is no ‘between’, Nothing, Everything…Infidefiception.
Everything is relative, State is Everything, infinity, for itself and with respect to itself.
This gives us the following:
Each state[ment] is the ‘Not’ or non-existence of the ‘other’ state[ment]. State[ment] exists relative to itself, doesn’t exist with respect to ‘other’. So state exists and doesn’t. They’re at infinity with respect to each other, yet are superimposed. State[ment](s) is superposed. This is Nothing = Everything, this is Infidefiception, this is state[ment]verse.
It’s not that something came out of nothing, nothing is something, Nothing is Everything.
Traditional ideas, their unification, their interpretation:
The traditional ideas involve something emerging from nothing, Particle-Antiparticle pair formation, tunneling from zero to finite size, from nothing to something, universe, spacetime ‘coming out’ of nothing, Natural/Quantum laws being the ultimate Basis, being ‘something’, involvement of dynamics, of change, of change in state.
Though it is claimed that spacetime itself emerges out of nothing, that infinitesimal or zero spacetime size becomes or tunnels to become a finite sized spacetime, this something ‘coming out’ of nothing involves or seems to involve change or dynamism or time. So if there is no time ‘before’, where did this change or dynamism come to be or how is it there? Besides, Nothing here is not ‘truely’ or ‘Absolute Nothing’, it is a state, and besides there is involvement of time or dynamics i.e. of transformation, of ‘state if nothing’ transforming (i.e. ‘becoming’) something – a finite sized entity (here spacetime).
This all has to do with the faith in or our gut intuition and familiarity for or the inherent desire and habituation/automation with dynamism, time or the concept of time, of ‘happenings’. More fundamentally, this has to with the relations between state[ment]s or existence, the concept of relation, the connection, the link, and with induction or the idea of it. Basically, this has to do with Absolutism.
We always think in terms of relations, law of induction, time, dynamism. But we have no idea what change actually is, and what it actually is about or what’s it telling.
This familiarity and automation, in our conscious or ‘subconscious’, with ‘time’, ‘happenings’ or ‘becoming’, with ‘relation’, ‘induction’, has to do with Absolutism – the inherent, definition driven, absolute desire of existence to exist.
Therefore it’s difficult to wrap around our head and understand beyond dynamism, or without involving dynamism. But doing so, has far more than what is traditionally taken as non-dynamism. It’s also difficult to wrap around our head and understand beyond non-dynamism, or without involving non-dynamism. But doing so, has far more than what is traditionally taken as dynamism.
The habituation and automation to think in terms of process or becomings, which is ultimately based on Absolutism, is what fuels and drives our narratives of ‘something coming out of nothing’, ‘Particle-Antiparticle pair formation or becoming or coming out of vacuum’, or ‘vacuum becoming Particle-Antiparticle pair(s)’, ‘zero sized spacetime or universe tunneling to finite sized entity’, and so on.
Quantum Tunneling:
Most think of quantum tunneling as a phenomenon, a dynamical thing, a process. But, the wavefunction is spread from one side of the potential hill, call it LHS, through the potential hill (classically forbidden region), to another side of the potential hill (PH), call it RHS. It’s not that this wavefunction travels from one end to the other through the hill, being divided in the process, partially getting reflected on LHS, partially absorbed (represented by the damping of the wave), and partially transmitted to the RHS. Wavefunction is like a field shaped like that throughout the region or system. Now, it’s also not that the system or region is or involves just one wavefunction that represents, say, some entity. The system is this construct, this entity involving multiple wavefunctions and their interference. This then gives or is a single ‘greater’ wavefunction, which describes not just this or that part of the system but the entire quantized system, holistically.
Now instead of thinking and bringing up the dynamical picture, of wavefunctions interfering to construct one greater (relatively universal) wavefunction, it can actually be visualized the other way around. There is this larger, greater, relative universal wavefunction. When looked at through the partial perspective, relative dynamism or relative dynamics emerge. When looked universally or relatively universally, i.e. at the relative universal wavefunction, the relative dynamics, that emerges by looking at it (relatively) partially or at partial wavefunctions, disappears, and a ‘static’ or relatively ‘static’ universal form is what is.
The greater the wavefunction, the higher the order of the universality of the wavefunction, the greater the non-dynamism. The smaller the wavefunction, the lower the order of the universality of the wavefunction, the greater the dynamism.
This can be seen or compared or equated with Einstein’s theory of relativity of spacetime, where there is the concept of 4D block universe. One can either look at the 3D spatial information and the dynamics play in it, i.e. the 1D temporal information. Or one can visualize a larger, greater, more universal (more absolute), non-dynamic picture of spacetime block, where there is no ‘happening’.
This interpretation of Quantum Physics, or world or idea, can be called a theory of Relativity of Existence. Here, it is not just that the spacetime is relative, here Existence itself is Relative, Everything is Relative, Nothing is Relative.
So in tunneling, the lowest universal or lowest degree of universality, is associated or corresponds to the eigenstate – which can be considered as the infinitely (to the limit, allowed by Quantum Physics in our universe) localized wavefunction. As we consider a larger/greater wavefunction, the degree of ‘universality’ (Absolutism/Absoluteness) increases. So for example, the ‘infinitely’ localized wavefunction corresponding to the ‘collapse’ or an electron assuming certain relatively definite (maybe absolute definite in context of our universe) state/eigenstate, is less universal and the greater wavefunction which is spread over the region(s) has a greater degree of universality/absoluteness. And, the even greater wavefunction with greater amount of information content, that corresponds to the system itself has even greater degree of universality or absolutism. And further, the wavefunction that describes and contains the information about the entire context/situation (and maybe is a greater set of possibilities) has even greater degree of universality/Absoluteness, and so on.
Therefore, instead of the dynamical picture, let’s take a look and the perspective that is universal/Absolute, or to be precise, has a greater degree of universality/absoluteness. Let’s take a perspective of a greater wavefunction. The greatest wavefunction is a relative thing. Here, relative to other lower degree wavefunctions, the wavefunction describing the entire system and context, is the greatest and the universal, the Absolute (even absolute is relative).
In this perspective, there is nothing happening, there is no ‘happening’. Just like the spacetime field is curved and structured in some way around the star for example in General Relativity and the spacetime block, the wavefunction field (the possibility field) is shaped and structured in some way in this potential hill scenario.
For example, if we consider electron, the state[ment] that states that the electron is at LHS1, the state[ment] that states that the electron is at LHS2,the state[ment] that states that the electron is at LHS3, the state[ment] that states that the electron is at LHS4, the state[ment] that states that the electron is at potential hill region 1 (PHR1), the state[ment] that states that the electron is at potential hill region 1 (PHR2), the state[ment] that states that the electron is at potential hill region 1 (PHR3), the state[ment] that states that the electron is at potential hill region 1 (PHR4), the state[ment] that states that the electron is at RHS1, the state[ment] that states that the electron is at RHS2, the state[ment] that states that the electron is at RHS3, the state[ment] that states that the electron is at RHS4, the state[ment] that states that the electron is at RHS5, and so on, exists with respect to itself, doesn’t exist (is non-existence or non-existent, is nothing) with respect to the ‘other’.
So, this is existence-non-existence, Nothing-Everything, Nothing = Everything.
This is Infidefiception
This is a special case, or an example, of State[ment]verse.
Therefore, it’s not that there is ‘coming out’ or ‘becoming’ or ‘tunneling’ of nothing to something/everything. Actually, Nothing is Everything.
Now, the Quantum Superposition is State[ment]verse. This is not ‘something’ or just something, it is something-nothing, Everything-Nothing, is Nothing, is Everything. Nothing = Everything.
Quantum law(s) are not ‘something’, or just something, it is something-nothing, Everything-Nothing, is Nothing, is Everything. Nothing = Everything.
This is Infidefiception
The Quantumverse is State[ment]verse.
Why no reason? Why the Ultimate/Absolute reason is No-Reason?:
There is no reason for anything. In other words, the reason is no-reason, Nothing. But what is no-reason?
No-reason is Infidefiception, no-reason is State[ment]verse.
Absence of everything, Nothing, is undefinable. There is no measurer, there is no observer, there is no measurement, there is no observation, there is no scale, there is no reference frame. We cannot even utter a word about Nothing. But then, by that, we cannot even state this, not even this, not even this, and so on. I hope you get the point. This is Infidefiception.
Now because we cannot state or make later statement about Nothing, the earlier statement about Nothing is justified. But then again, the earlier statement cannot be made and isn’t justified, and so the later is, and so on. This is Infidefiception. (13)
Every thing is a state, every thing is statement. When there is Nothing, there is no reason. There is no reason for any thing, or any particular thing. There is no any reason for any state or statement of existence. There is no reason for any A, Now because there is no reason for A, any other state or statement B, which is just not A, is justified. Hence B = N-A exists and is true. But, B or N-A is just another statement. And when initiated from its perspective or frame of reference, for B, it has no reason.
There’s no reason for B. So Not B or N-B is justified. Now it’s not that B is only N-A or not A, or that A is the only NB, even C is N-A, C is N-B, D is N-A, D is N-B, A is N-D, and so on.
One is the complement of the other. (14)
The non existence or non justification of one is the existence or justification of the other, of the quote-unquote, not, of that. In fact, one is just the nonexistence of the other. One state or statement is just the not state or not statement of the other. One is just the quote-unquote other of other.
Therefore, when there is Nothing, no reason for anything, then Nothing is justified, everything is justified. This is because Nothing is Everything. For entities or state or statements, each complement or quote-unquote, not, of other, Nothing is Everything.
The events, that are the fundamental quantized units of spacetime, of our existence, are special cases of the states or statements of the Statement-verse. Each event the complement, or quote-unquote not, of the other. (15)
Therefore, each event exists and is the existence or existent for itself, and does not exist for the other and is non-existence or non-existent with respect to the other. The spacetime block is just a special case of Statement-verse, Each event a universe in itself and with respect to itself. Similarly, the universes in a Multiverse is a special case of states or statements, and Multiverse a special case of Statement-verse. The Multiverse equivalent is the spacetime block, in a quote-unquote single spacetime construct.
Depending on the information in the state or statement, the states take the role of single spatial point or event or location, temporal point or event or location, spatio-temporal event, timelines, spatio-temporal lines, universes, even Multiverses, even multi-Multiverses, and so on.
When there is no ‘you’, no observer, no observation, no experiment, no scale, no measurer, no measurement, then there is no confirmation or claiming of one state[ment], no confirmation or claiming of ‘other’ state[ment], no confirmation (of) otherwise. There is no you or experiment to confirm this or that, A or B=NA, B=NC, or C= NA, or C=NB,… There is no you or experiment to deny that or this, C=NB, or C= NA, B=NC, B=NA or A,… There is no you or experiment to confirm/deny this or that, A or B=NA, B=NC, or C= NA, or C=NB,…
Even (state of) confirmation is a state. Even (state of) denial is a state. Confirmation is only true and only exits for the state of confirmation (। Confir >). Denial is only true and only exits for the state of Denial (। Denial >).
State । Confir > is the existence of, is Everything with respect to, state । Confir >. State । Denial > is the existence of, is Everything with respect to, state । Denial >.
State । Confir > is the ‘Not state[ment]’ of, is Nothing with respect to, state । Denial >. State । Denial> is the ‘Not state[ment]’ of, is Nothing with respect to, state । Confir >.
With respect to, i.e. in perspective of, state | A > or |Confir A> is true and exists, and the ‘otherwise’ is not true i.e. doesn’t exist, is non-existence, is Nothing.
With respect to, i.e. in perspective of, state | B > or |Confir B> is true and exists, and the ‘otherwise’ is not true i.e. doesn’t exist, is non-existence, is Nothing.
Since A cannot be confirmed, B=NA cannot be denied. Since B cannot be denied, A=NB cannot be confirmed. Since B cannot be confirmed, A=NB cannot be denied. Since A cannot be denied, B=NA cannot be confirmed.
So on….. This is Infidefiception
It’s not that something comes out of Nothing, something is Nothing, Nothing is Everything.
[Probab. Duty cycle of ]
Now, examining this definition of state-space:
ddddd
State-Instantaneity:
Comments
Post a Comment