STATE[MENT]VERSE (STMV) – Let’s talk existence-nonexistence 1

When we say something from nothing, it clearly on analysis means not from anything. So, that ‘something’ is just existent. It’s the same as declaring that ‘something’ from itself. Similarly, When we say everything from nothing, it means not from anything. So, that ‘something’ is just existent. It’s the Basis, it’s the brute fact, It already exists. There is no coming, no happening, as coming/happening from nothing means not coming/happening.

Now if we look at the universe, for example, the entire spacetime block, then it actually can be interpreted as having come from nothing. The state that is presumed as ‘nothing’, if presumed, can be taken as just another state. So the entirety of this ‘everything’ is existent. Now can it be said that this entity was existent forever?

Well, to claim that this existed ‘forever’ would require it be existent for infinite time. So when we’re talking about existing forever, we’re comparing the existence of that with respect to time, usually speaking. But can this comparison be made with any other thing or dimension? Well, Yes. But we’ll talk about it later (maybe).

Anyhow, to say that this universe, this totality of spacetime-block, exists forever means that it exists infinitely with respect to time. This means that this universe, this totality of spacetime-block, exists with respect to each temporal point. This would imply some temporal dimension external to it (the block). It requires temporal dimension defined externally. Also, since the entire block exits and exists infinitely with respect to time, this block in its entirety as a quantized single indivisible ‘thing’ must exist at each point, i.e. with respect to each point, of that external temporal dimension. So the state does not change. At each external temporal co-ordinate/point, that entire block exits as a quantum of existence. All state is the same state, namely that block spacetime. I.e. at each external temporal coordinate is the same block existing in its entirety, indivisibly, as a single quantum in divisible state/existence. So there is no change, or change in state. There is no other state. There is no temporality. There is permanence. There is no difference between the states or events or existence with respect to each external temporal point. There is no difference between the states or events or existence existing at each external temporal point. It’s eternal, exists infinitely, permanently, absolutely.

But if there’s an external temporal dimension, how is that block the universe then? By definition, Universe must include Everything, Universe is Everything. How can something be external to it, and independent to it?

Also, if that block is consistently, unchangingly existing with respect to that temporal dimension, then how are they independent. They ‘always’ exist with respect to each other. They exist in tandum. This means they exist as a unit, a single indivisible, inseparable entity. Basically, they’re the same thing. So we don’t need to picture an extra dimension that is independent and external to the block that’s in co-existence with the block (infinitely). It’s equivalent to considering the temporal dimension in the block itself – the entire internal temporal dimension, and considering the block itself. They’re basically the same picture.

Also if there is no change/difference, then how is that external temporal dimension a temporal dimension if nothing is changing, if state isn’t changing, i.e. if nothing is changing with respect to it? What is the meaning and use and value and difference in having something different and extra if it gives no extra information; if it informs nothing new or different and makes no difference? That’s just means ‘it is’ is ‘it isn’t’, that its existence is its nonexistence. So, it’s no use considering another information dimension, it simply doesn’t exist.

One might say that the external temporal points are themselves different, along the dimension and form/constitute the dimension. So this would just mean that the totality, i.e. total information is ‘Block + external temporal information (or coordinate/location)’ i.e. ‘B+T’ and not just the block ‘B’. So the states are, for example, S1=B1+T1, S2=B2+T2, S3=B3+T3, S4=B4+T4, ….. , which are different states. This just means that the totality or Block isn’t the previous block but the new block that is constituted, or seemingly/relatively constituted from within, by the states S1, S2,… Let’s refer to this block as ‘Block’.

Also, this would mean that reference frames that are external to the previous, let’s call it smaller block or refer to it as ‘block’, exist. And the totality is this bigger block called Block, is this [spacetime]time block. Also the quantum states here are S1, S2, … These quantum states – fundamental indivisible individual discrete units of existence i.e. fundamental units of this Block, contain the [spacetime]time information rather than spacetime information.

Here, the ‘block’ and ‘Block’ are different. There maybe other types of blocks, with another dimension, and another,a nd another, and so on…..

[NOTE: One might try to compare them and claim something like one is smaller or bigger than the other based on the information content, but that is Indefiception]

Now, whether such [spacetime]time block or other types of universes, such as multiverse(s) or multiverse(s) of multiverse(s), exists or not, it doesn’t matter, the same point made or thing discussed with [spacetime]time block can be made for any block. The universe is a universe – the totality, the everything. If there’s an extra temporal dimension, for example, then that’s fine, but that’s beside the point.

The point is that, in case of [spacetime]time block, the state, i.e. the actual total state, is not s1 = sp1+t1, it’s S1=[sp1+t1]+T1; where sp is for spatial component/point/cordinate/dimension, t for interior temporal dimension/location, T for exterior temporal dimension/location.

Now, since Ts are different, if they’re different, then each state S is different. So the state is changing with respect to the points/coordinates of external temporal dimension T. With change in Ts, the state is changing. If this is the case then how is the block (the spacetime block) an unchanging indivisible quantum block, how is it immortal or non-temporal, how is it permanent? How does it – the one single block exist infinitely with respect to external temporal dimension? Here, in case of [spacetime]time block, which is the ‘block’ /Universe in general or in actuality, this block is the totality, the complete. And this block, which we refer to Block, is what exists. Now the question arises, does this block i.e. Block, exist infinitely then. This is the same question previously asked for the block i.e. spacetime block. And the whole thing/discussion repeats again and again up to here, for any other block with any other extra dimension(s) or in general for any universe, until we go now to the next level.

Now moving to the next level: If the external temporal points/coordinates have no extra information, i.e. are not different from one another, then all such points are the same point, and same as the origin of that dimension. So the dimension is just a zero-dimension. So in other words, there is no such dimension. This is equivalent to and same as just spacetime block. Also, each state i.e. the spacetime (st)-block at each external time coordinate T is same, and if Ts are same and T-dimension is zero-dimension, then each state S = s+T is same; where S is state corresponding to [spacetime]time block Block, s to spacetime block, T to external temporal information/coordinate. So S1, S2, S3, S4,… are same and the one, which is nothing but that spacetime block referred to as just or simply as ‘block’.

Now, we cannot refer to this spacetime block as a state or quantized state – a quantum of existence/experience. That privilege, in this case for spacetime block/universe, goes to spacetime events. But this doesn’t make a difference as state/statement can be anything, provided that it is a quantum of experience/existence, i.e. set of information i.e. quantum of information i.e. quantum set of information. The spacetime block is just an example.

Here the spacetime block is infinitely existent with respect to its space component, its time component, with respect to spacetime i.e. itself. This block is Everything with respect to itself, this block is infinity with respect to itself, it is infinitely existent with respect to itself. If we can separate space, or time, or any part/component/dimension of this spacetime block, which we can’t and is no separation as it is an integral inseparable part of spacetime, the spacetime being the totality, the complete, the absolute, with respect to itself, exits infinitely with that, with itself. Infinity is relative, everything is relative, nothing is relative. Existence is relative, non-Existence is relative.

We can say that because there is no time or observer/observation/measurement that measures the ‘infinite existence’ of the spacetime block, and because there is no measurer/measurement/information or temporal dimension and that there is no observer, no statement that dictates/states such, it cannot be declared infinite existence or non-existence or any other way. There is no such external statement/state that informs of such. There is no external state in the first place. But not even this all can be said, not even this, not even this, and so on. This is Infidefiception.

Nothing can be said not just about the universe or that spacetime block (for example), but nothing can be said of that ‘external observer/state’.

Now, what’s going on here?

When speaking of anything/existence, one must ask the question and the question is, with respect to what? Suppose for this example, there are only ‘two’ entities: the internal observer/the spacetime block/’universe, the external observer. Now when we say things like ‘thing’, ‘two’, ‘entities’, or anything, one must be very careful as to with respect to what? When I said ‘two’, or anything and created this scenario/picture, it’s actually with respect to the observer that is reading this, or writing or visualizing this, which I’m also the one. It’s impossible to not presume yourself or you existence. This would require not existing with respect to ownself. It’s impossible for anything to not exist with respect to itself. Something cannot be nothing with respect to itself.

To speak of these fundamental things, in true fundamental sense is to stretch the existence itself to the limit. If we’re really talking of the fundamental stuff or any stuff truly, we can only do it by experiencing that. Now it’s impossible to express the true thing truly, whatever it is, in terms of any other thing, for example, words. There is no way to express the fundamental than to use words here. Even nothing can only be expressed in terms of something by something. One cannot express or experience nothing in true sense, but then even that cannot be said as there is no experience of nothing and I haven’t experienced nothing; nothing is non-experience. But even this cannot be said about nothing, not even this, not even this, and so on…. This is Infidefiception, Nothing is Infidefiception

But anyway, let’s go back to our scenario. Before that, what I want to emphasize again is that no amount of words describing this can be claimed to be correct and/or exact and/or true and/or exactly truly literally literal. But, this is the best one can do here; express it in terms of words. I’m doing it to the best of my linguistic capability. It’s basically like expressing or telling about a tiger via words or cave-paintings or any other media to someone who hasn’t seen one. It is even difficult to express such to someone who hasn’t ever seen, not just tiger, but also hasn’t seen any beast. Now imagine how difficult would it be to give an experience of tiger, for example, to someone who has no idea of anything. (Well its actually impossible for any existence to have no idea, nothing, of of anything) (Similarly,) it is incomprehensible for something to even know in any way about Nothing, the experience is an impossibility. But then, one cannot even say that and this again leads to Indefiception. It is impossible for any thing to have an experience of any thing else. Here, expressing in words, this limit of existence, is like expressing in words about Nothing.

So let’s do what can be done: So there are two entities: the internal observer (IO)/spacetime block, the external observer (EO). IO has no information of EO, EO has no information of IO. Therefore, IO exists for itself, doesn’t exist with respect to EO and not even that can be said ad leads to Infidefiception. EO exists for itself, doesn’t exist with respect to IO and not even that can be said ad leads to Infidefiception. If they existed relative to each other, in traditional sense that would mean that if they interacted, then they’d form and be a single quantized system or unit/state. Then the scenario, like that discussed above with spacetime block and external time, is what is.

But if not, IO is its universe, EO is its universe.

This is true of any state(s), even that are the spacetime events in that spacetime block. And actually, spacetime block isn’t a state, but a state/statement can assume such. Anyway, since that was the initial example, it is convenient to use it. However, the spacetime block here is a quanta, an inseparable, indivisible, state/statement with no parts or separable part(s).

So, in this case, for IO there is IO, and that’s it. For EO, there is EO, and that’s it. (even ‘that’s it’ should not be mentioned with respect to IO, EO. This, ‘that’s it’ is true with respect to us only.)

Spacetime = Mass-Energy-Momentum:

When there is spacetime, there is no energy-momentum. When there is energy-momentum, there is no spacetime. Spacetime and matter-energy is interconvertible. Spacetime transforms/converts to mass-energy momentum, and vice-versa. There is a conservation of something/everything/nothing, conservation of spacetime/energy-momentum in one or the another from, as spacetime form or matter-energy form. This is what is I dub as ‘The need for Space/Time/Spacetime’.

When there is something, in any amount, there is zero amount of ‘nothing’, there is no nothing, as no nothing is something/everything. Hence in the conservation of something/everything, ‘nothing’ is also preserved/conserved, and it will have zero value i.e. no ‘nothing’.

The equivalence of spacetime and energy-matter-momentum can not only be realized in Einstein’s Field equation in General theory of Relativity but also in Quantum Mechanics, from/in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle/relation.

In the Uncertainty relation, in the two versions: one is the space (position)-momentum/velocity uncertainty relation and the other is the energy-time uncertainty relation.

If there is no space i.e. zero space, then the uncertainty in position i.e. space is zero. Then from the 1st form of the uncertainty relation, the uncertainty in momentum is infinite. Therefore, uncertainty being standard deviation, standard deviation corresponding to momentum is infinite. And therefore the mean-value of, i.e. average, momentum is infinite. So all the space, i.e. infinite space, can be thought of as converted to momentum.

Similarly, if there is no time i.e. zero time, then the uncertainty in time is zero. Then from the 2nd form of the uncertainty relation, the uncertainty in energy is infinite. Therefore, uncertainty being standard deviation, standard deviation corresponding to energy is infinite. And therefore the mean-value of, i.e. average, energy is infinite. So all the time, i.e. infinite time, can be thought of as converted to energy.

So, zero spacetime means all the (infinite) spacetime has converted to energy-momentum-matter. So, zero spacetime means all the (infinite) spacetime has converted to all the (infinite) energy-momentum-matter. Therefore, zero (no) spacetime means infinite energy-momentum.

Similarly, in case of infinite spacetime, all the energy-momentum has converted to spacetime. So the infinite energy-momentum has converted to infinite spacetime. In that case there is zero energy-momentum; zero momentum, zero energy.

The zero spacetime, i.e. infinite energy-momentum, ‘condition’/’situation’/state is the state which is traditionally referred to as the before the ‘beginning’ of the universe, or as ‘before’ the big bang, or as zero (no/infinitesimal) spacetime that tunnels to finite non-zero spacetime in Alexander Valeinken’s theory in which zero size spacetime tunnels to finite size spacetime.

[I would consider the ‘finite’ also as infinitesimal, as I’d consider the ‘zero’ as infinitesimal. Infinitesimal being a portal/bridge between zero and finite non-zero. In general, infinitesimal being Quantum Superposition of zero ‘and’ finite.]

The infinite spacetime, i.e. zero energy-momentum, ‘condition’/’situation’/state si the state which can be linked to and seen as the traditionally referred heat-death of universe(s) and/or to infinite/eternal inflation.

So in the, ‘something from “nothing” ‘, the “nothing” actually is not nothing. But then what is actual nothing? Yes, in the statement, ‘something from nothing’, ‘nothing’ is put under quotation as to indicated that it’s not actually nothing, and that there is law(s) of nature that pre-exists and is always presumed (by mind), that there is always something. Something is always ‘aware’ and intuitively feels or assumes something. Maybe that something is just that observer/measurer/observation/measurement itself. That something can’t get rid of itself, with respect to itself.

So, energy-momentum is just another form of spacetime i.e. something, and vice-versa. Also, spacetime/energy-momentum is just another form of the Quantum law(s), the law(s) of Nature. Now, we can say that the law(s) of Nature, the Quantum law(s), is just form of ‘something’/everything. Also, we can say that something/everything is just the form of the observer/measurer/experiencer/observation/measurement/experience itself. Any experience will always experience something. Experience is something, experience is everything, is the universe, experience is Existence. Experience is state/statement.

But anyway, even if we keep the law(s) aside, the above discussion on energy-momentum being just another form of spacetime i.e. something, and vice-versa, the infinite energy-momentum with zero spacetime is something, is infinite something, is ‘everything’. So something is always in existence, as something is existence. Though spacetime is infinitely violated, it appears as and converts to infinite energy-momentum. Hence it is conserved, in some way/form or the other. The totality is space-time(spacetime)-energy-matter-momentum-pressure. So, space-time(spacetime)-energy-matter-momentum-pressure is preserved, is conserved, is Absolute, is permanent. ‘Everything’/’something’/anything is conserved/permanent/immortal/Absolute, with respect to itself.

But maybe, space-time(spacetime)-spacetime–curvature-energy-matter-momentum-pressure isn’t just ‘something’, but rather nothing. And not just that, space-time(spacetime)-spacetime–curvature-energy-matter-momentum-pressure, i.e. something, Everything, is Nothing. This is just another Nothing = Everything theory or its form.

Now, if infinite energy-momentum is in, and/or is, zero spacetime, then where and when is that energy-momentum? When there is no spacetime, no where and no when, then where and when is the infinite energy-momentum?

When there is energy-momentum-matter, there actually is no spacetime, and vice-versa. We perceive and generally think that ‘things’ are in spacetime. But actually, when there is energy-momentum-matter, there actually is no spacetime, and vice-versa. It’s not that energy-momentum-matter is in spacetime, it’s in the absence of spacetime. When and where spacetime vanishes there and then is energy-momentum-matter. When and where spacetime vanishes there and then it emerges and converts to and appears as energy-momentum-matter. Spacetime vanishes to emerge as energy-momentum-matter, and vice-versa. It’s not that energy-momentum-matter is in spacetime, it’s not that energy-momentum-matter is in “simultaneous” existence with respect to spacetime. Energy-momentum-matter-pressure, or stress, exists and ‘is’ in expense of spacetime, spacetime exists and ‘is’ in expense of energy-momentum-matter-pressure.

But why is that when energy is applied or given to a system, it induces change and the system changes? Now, for example, when a photon – an energy packet hits you or anything, this energy gets destroyed, and therefore it reappears and converts to the temporal motion (time) and/or spatial motion (space/length/position) – another form of energy-momentum.

Now maybe and we may claim, observer/measurer/observation/measurement = something = Natural Law(s) = Nature.

When there is no observer, for example in case when there is no universe or “before big bang”, there is no scale, no measurement, no definition, no existence. Then one cannot justify this, that. It cannot be claimed this, that, not this, not that. So everything is justified, nothing is justified. This is what Nothing is, this is Infidefiception, this is infinite Quantum Superposition of ‘every’ states, this is Everything = Nothing, this is Everything not equal to Nothing, so on….. This is Infidefiception

This is State[ment]verse

This is why we apparently, as observer, as something, have no clue and cannot define things like ‘beyond existence’ or ‘before big bang’, or ‘beyond’ Consistency, in our terms, in terms of something. They’re not even things, but are things, and not, and yes, and not and so on… This is indefinition, This is Indefiception, This is CONTRADICTION, This is Nothing, This is Infidefiception.

Why did, or why does, the energy-momentum convert(s) to spacetime? Why time runs forward – towards the ‘future’/relative-future?

The thing is, the absolute, the totality, i.e. the everything, i.e. the universe isn’t (just) spacetime, isn’t energy-momentum-matter. The totality is Spacetime-Energy-momentum-matter. Though conversion from energy-momentum to spacetime, and/or vice-versa, seems like and is change, like it has the element of temporality, the totality isn’t changing. There is no change in the Absolute, that is Spacetime-Energy-momentum-matter.

It’s not that spacetime is conserved, it’s not that energy-momentum-matter is conserved. It’s the Spacetime-Energy-momentum-matter that’s conserved, is total, is whole, is absolute. Or apparently so.

By the way, this is the scientific version of Absolutism. However, its argued that it isn’t, and it ‘eventually’ leads to and it’s Absolute-non-Absolute, Absolutism-non-Absolutism.

Energy-momentum changes and can change to Spacetime, because the ‘change’ actually makes no difference, in the or with respect to the total complete absolute. And maybe, as far as that’s the case, we’re happy with the picture, as that meets our desire and demand for the Absolute.

But if some other dimensions emerge out, and what was thought as absolute, Spacetime-Energy-momentum-matter, is no more the Absolute, then we include that dimension (say D) to the so thought absolute i.e. to Spacetime-Energy-momentum-matter. So the Absolute i.e. absolute absolute, is D-Spacetime-Energy-momentum-matter. And Spacetime-Energy-momentum-matter is Absolute for the creatures/observers/entities within Spacetime-Energy-momentum-matter. Spacetime-Energy-momentum-matter for higher dimensional creatures, i.e. the observers/observations in D-Spacetime-Energy-momentum-matter, becomes ‘temporal’, and they realize it as a relative absolute, not Absolute.

The question(s) above, about why change, is also just about Absolutism- the search for the absolute, so is this, this, this, this, Everything, Nothing,… This is Infidefiception

Now this, time running forward or only forward, or creation of universe, beginning of universe, something not Nothing, something from “nothing”, gives us a kind of unfulfillment, no satisfaction. This creates a kind of dissatisfaction, unsettlement. This is because these lack the Absolute. We’re constantly in search for the absolute i.e. of Absolute existence. This comes from the simple fact/definition of existence, that existence wants existence, existence wants to exit, existence is all about existence/existing, because it is by definition existence, it is existence. But even our ‘constant’ search isn’t constant. That there is no Absolute, is also not Absolute, not even this not this, not this,… This is Infidefiception

In the creation theories, God is the stopping point, where God is Absolute. So that seems to fulfill our desire for the Absolute. Some convince themselves of the Absolute in their faith and ideas. Some realize, that’s not the case, and go further, pursuing Science, law(s) of Nature.

But all leads to infinite regression. But all lead to Infidefiception. Even Infidefiception leads to Infidefiception. I’m no different, and proposing and pursuing Infidefiception, State[ment]verse, is no different. It all leads to Infidefiception, to State[ment]verse. Even this is not Absolute, Absolute is NO-ABSOLUTE. Not even this is Absolute, not even this, not even this,… This is Infidefiception, this is State[ment]verse

By the way, even brute fact is infinite regression. Brute fact means there is no justification, no reason, Nothing. Nothing is Infinite regression. Nothing is Everything. Nothing is Infidefiception. Nothing is State[ment]verse

Now we want the answer to why time runs forward?, or why did the universe begin?, why is there something/everything rather than Nothing?, why something/everything came out of “nothing”, why energy-momentum converts to spacetime?

In all this, we seek the Absolute. It’s about Absolutism.

Now the answer is this:

It’s not that time only ‘moves’ ‘forward’, it moves ‘backward’ too. The way we think of time travel, especially of backward time travel, is misleading.

Let me go through this with an example:

Consider three events constituting a timeline, for simplicity. Let the three events be Present (P), a bit relative past to it (B), and a bit relative future to it (F). Now events are just special cases of states; events are states. Here state only contains or is temporal information.

Now, ‘going’ to the past means P transitioning to B, and going to the future means P transitioning to F. If P becomes F, the assumed state is F. This state F has the information that it was P and that became F. But, FYI, actually there is no transitioning, no moving or going or becoming or travelling. This all is the, and due to, the information in the, or that is the, state. Anyway, this is besides the point.

F has the information that ‘it was P and became F’. This is why it ‘knows of the past’, and ‘time travel to the future’. Now, going to the past means, P transitioning to B. If P becomes B, the assumed state is B. This state B has no information that it was P and that became B.

So, even travelling to past, i.e. past state(s), won’t make a difference as there is no information of the past travel i.e. of travelling backwards in time. So, there is time travel backwards, there is time travel forwards. In other words, there is no time travel, neither backwards, nor forwards. In totality of all this, the totality/absolute isn’t changing. So in totality, in this absolute, it isn’t that energy-momentum-matter converts to spacetime, vice-versa, it isn’t that only present/past evolves to future, vice-versa, it isn’t that time travels only forward, vice-versa.

So this symmetry, which is sought everywhere, saves the day and gives us the Absolute, or seemingly so. Actually this leads to the totality or every thing not exiting, the existence being non-existence, this leads to the existence-nonexistence of the whole, the whole thing, Everything = Nothing, Everything-Nothing. This leads to Infidefiception, to State[ment]verse

The question, ‘why no past travel?’, now reduces to ‘why there is no time-travel information in past state(s)? This is the question that asks, ‘why isn’t that past state not that past state?’ Or ‘why isn’t that past state the ‘not-statement’ of itself?’ Or ‘why isn’t that past state the other state?’

We can definitely present such questions, there’s no harm. But the answer is simple; it’s by definition, by that state itself, by that definition itself. It is not that because it is not that, by definition, because it is it. Yes this is cyclic, but at the fundamental level, it is it’s justification/reason/answer, a brute fact.

We can question why so?, why so?, why so?, so on….. This is Infidefiception, the ultimate answer is Nothing, no reason, no answer, Question-Mark, an infinite regression, Nothing, Infidefiception, State[ment]verse

The fundamental is state(s)/statement(s). They exist, they don’t exist, with respect to itself, with respect to its ‘Not-statement’. Everything = Nothing, Contradiction, Infidefiception, State[ment]verse

Nothing = No observer/measurer/observation/measurement = No Natural Law(s) = No Nature = Nature = Everything

Now, there was no observer before or at-in (space-time) the Big Bang, because there was no ‘at’ or ‘in’ or ‘at-in’ since there was no spacetime. If there was no observer, no observation, then there was no definition, no measurement, then what defined the zero space, zero time, zero spacetime? And if there is no definition as such, the uncertainty must be infinite. And infinite quantum uncertainty is infinite quantum superposition – quantum superposition of infinite states/statements.

But with respect to what? Since there is nothing, no observer, no frame of reference/definition, then for what is there the uncertainty with respect to?

Now to answer this, one must understand this: Uncertainty/Quantum-uncertainty (Quantainty or Quanty) is the absence of certainty. And certainty is what’s with respect to the observer/measurement. In fact, certainty is observation/measurement/definition/observer. So, absence of certainty, i.e. uncertainty, is absence of observer/scale/reference-frame/realization, absence of definition. In (any) finite uncertainty, there is a finite ‘region’ or ‘range’ of absence of certainty i.e. absence of measurement. For example, in a hundred-meter length measured of a rod, if there is (plus-minus) 100 cm uncertainty, with uncertainty-range is 200 cm, and certainty range is 100 meter minus 200 cm. The 200 cm range hasn’t interacted or been ‘localized’ or become the part of observation/universe, the rest certainty range has.

In other words, uncertainty with respect to any observer/observation is the ‘not state/statement’, i.e. the ‘rest’, of or with respect to that state/statement/universe that is the observer/observation/state.

Now finite uncertainty also involves finite certainty. This is like any state and its any ‘not-state’. That state being certainty/definition with respect to itself, and its ‘not-statement’ being uncertainty/indefinition. But ‘beyond big bang’, Nothing, is not ‘not-statement’. ‘Not statement’ is just another statement with respect to any that statement of which it is ‘not-state’. Nothing, or the notion of beyond big bang, beyond the ultimate basis, beyond universe/Everything, is not the ‘not-statement, is not the statement, is not that statement itself.

This is Nothing, this is Infideficetion. One can, in terms of something and to just understand and this as analogy can be viewed as that part of State[ment]verse, that ‘space’ or ‘distance’ or ‘interval’ or ‘difference’ between state[ment]s. In a specific picture or sense, this can be viewed as that part of multiverse, that ‘space’ or ‘distance’ or ‘interval’ or ‘difference’ between universes. But this is just an analogy and must be taken with some caution.

This is like presenting Nothing in terms of something, which we all do and are familiar with. The states are and define the general space, what is the space between them. The ‘interval’ or ‘difference’ is encoded within state, that information is in the sate, is the state, so what’s between states? Nothing, Everything, no space/difference, every/infinite space/difference, Infidefiception, State[ment]verse.

Now ‘before big bang’, in general terms, i.e. Nothing, is infinite uncertainty/Quantum-uncertainty, is infinite Quantum superposition – Quantum superposition of infinite state[ment](s).

Now, infinite uncertainty involves no certainty, i.e. no observer, no measurement, nothing as real/measurement/observation/experience/observer. Infinite uncertainty is that ‘interval’ or ‘difference’ ‘between’ state[ment](s). This is infinite, zero, infinitely far, infinitely close, Everything, Nothing, Infidefiception. This is State[ment]verse.

Uncertainty, is with respect to, is relative to, something when there is finite uncertainty. Because, that something, is that finite certainty that that finite uncertainty involves or corresponds to. Uncertainty isn’t relative, isn’t ‘with respect to’, something when there is zero certainty, when there is no something, when there is nothing. Uncertainty isn’t relative, isn’t ‘with respect to’, Nothing i.e. infinite uncertainty i.e. zero/no certainty.

This is confusion can be seen as that which occurred with spacetime and energy-momentum-matter. It’s not that energy-momentum-matter is in, or is/exists simultaneously with spacetime, it’s at the expense of spacetime, and vice-versa. Similarly, it’s not that uncertainty is with respect to certainty/observer, it’s at the expense/absense of certainty/observer/realization. Infinite uncertainty is at the expense of infinite certainty. Infinite uncertainty, i.e. Nothing, is at the expense of infinite certainty i.e. Everything. Infinite uncertainty, i.e. Nothing, is the negation of infinite certainty i.e. Every thing. And this negation, this expense is infinite certainty, Everything. Infinite Uncertainty = Infinite Certainty = No/Zero Uncertainty. Infinite Quantum Superositon = Infinite No Quantum Superposition = Zero/No Quantum Superposition. Nothing = Everything. This is Infidefiception

State[ment]verse

Are Quantum Laws, Nature’s Fundamental Laws/nature, something?

What are Quantum laws? We can say they Quantum law is a statement, Quantum laws statements. But actually they’re not actual statements. We creatures of classical, real world understand/realize them in terms of our state(s)/statement(s).

The classical/real state(s) is statement(s).

But even if we take them as statement, we can consider Quantum superposition of statements. But it’s basically the same thing.

Anyway, every statement is a ‘not-statement’ of any other statement. Also, every statement/state defines a space of existence, universe. So, the distinction or difference or ‘distance’ between any statements is Nothing, is Everything, is Infidefiception, as all information, all definition lies and is the statement/state itself. It is the universe of existence, remember?

So, any statements are infinitely far, infinitely close, with respect to one another. Again, the distinction or difference or ‘distance’ between any statements is Nothing, is Everything, is Infidefiception

So they exist and don’t.

This is Everything, this is Nothing.

This is NOTHING = EVERYTHING

This is CONTRADICTION

This is INFIDEFICEPTION

This is STATE[MENT]VERSE

[More on that later …]