Dhiresh

What are numbers? What is abstract? What is abstractness? What is consciousness? What is awareness? What is experience itself? What is empirical? What is information itself? What is redness? Does everyone see the “RED” as “RED” or is it that some see “RED” as “RED” and others as “GREEN”, and some others as “BLUE” and so on? i.e. does everyone see “RED” the way “I” see “RED”? Is it possible to answer these question? Is it a valid question? Can the answer not be the subject of the query itself? Can we answer this with something other than the subject of the query itself? i.e. Can we define the subject with respect to/in terms of something other than the subject itself? i.e. without involving the subject itself? The Idea of BASIS As it is clear from the blanks above, it is impossible to not make a leap/certain finite (quantum) jump to something else, or not define something else, and still construct/give rise to/define something else. [Even nothing is something in the language of Set. Hen...

Existence loves consistency. This is because Existence loves Permanence, it loves the Absolute, it loves Immortality. Consistency is the desired one, be it in Universe, in the Space-time, in Quantum fields, in Logic, in Mathematics or axiomatic structures, in Religion, in everyday events, in the idea and concepts of God, in any structure. From the largest of the existence – the Universe/Multiverse, to the smaller ones, to the smallest existence – the spacetime chunk/particle/Quantum, i.e. event, to Particle-Anti-Particle (P-AP) pair/structure, to the Uncertainty (example: the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle/Relation), to me preaching about State[ment]verse. Everything desires consistency, consistently, constantly. This ‘desire’ for consistency, like the ‘ Question-Mark ‘, and like the non-realization of consistency, is consistent, and seems so. [Yes, I said the non-realization of consistency. Will be explained later] Mathematics, and Logic, and reason, and the ‘Laws of Physics and o...

In the article titled, “ Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva “, the following, (beginning from the 11th paragraph counted from the last para or rather last statement) is said: But this whole sabang, this whole of totality, of everything, at the very end, or at the very limit, or to the very limit, to infinity, exists. This structure in totality, exists. This totality of everything and whole of everything, exists. So the totality and the whole exists. Also: And this totality or whole, has no part, or no component, of non-existence, or this ‘existence-nonexistence’, i.e. the transformation/change, represented, by Brahma and Shiva. And: So in the context of totality or whole, there is no component of non-existence or this, ‘existence-nonexistence’, dualness, or this ‘existence-nonexistence’ duality, or this “existence-nonexistence” thing, i.e. nothing i.e. existence-nonexistence superposition. This continues: So this, existence-nonexistence, or ‘thing-nothing’, thing, in context of, totality or whole, ...