BUILDING THE PARADIGM
Good! So, where do we start?
Since my blurb, I came across a quote from Descartes which seems to me entirely appropriate: “We must, once in our life, get rid of all the opinions that have been received and rebuild again, and from the foundation, the system knowledge.” If you are not careful, you might think that this is pretty much what I said in my homepage! But there are nuances. He speaks of “rebuilding the system of knowledge”. But from where will he start if not from the abandoned corpses of his opinions, since he does not really give any method, simply begging the question. Descartes is also an excellent example of the failure of his own method; if indeed he could ever applied it. Indeed, in his “Discourse of the Method” he suggested to decompose into “simpler” elements which appear complicated. He gives no example to show the products of decomposition are more “simple” to understand. A naivety that the development of physics demonstrates several centuries later: when trying to break ‘matter’ indefinitely, one comes across a “fog” of “pseudo-particles” almost incomprehensible. But even in his time, rather than being grumpy, he would have done well to be “on time” simply watching his clock or his watch… Is a gear easier to understand than the clock from which it has been extracted, if we do not have a second gear with which to engage, and is what he says related in any way to the measurement of time?
Let us therefore tick to the beginning of his remark and let us drop the opinions we have received from Mr. Descartes. At most, we can recognize his pioneering position regarding the simplistic scientific behavior. Just before he died was born the guy responsible for the idea of the attraction of the moon being the cause of tides, since Newton had never been to the seaside and/or did not know, that there were two tides per day, or that there was only one moon?? Or was he so much intoxicated with the “vulgar” mercury he thought he would use for his alchemical experiments?
But let’s rather start at the beginning…
Since we will be led to think, it would be good to know what logic is, and to master it. I even suggest that this is the first thing to feed in our Infinity with.
Do not tell me you do not know what it is. You spend your time making deductions. Without ever having learned how to do that, by the way. That may be why you constantly use upside down something you did not have the user manual of!
In fact this manual disappeared between India and Greece, thirty centuries ago.
The brand of reasoning is the use of the word “therefore” or its equivalent “because”. But that only concerns the course of reasoning. We are just forgetting the starting point!
Since we need to find the “starting point of the starting point”, let’s take advantage of it to notice that if everyone is making deductions, this part of the use of logic makes it something universal, not meaning something that belongs to this universe and can be found everywhere, but something which is clearly likely to be a good basis for our Infinity!
What has been missing in our approach to logic since ancient Greece, is checking the reality, or truth, of the starting point of our reasonings.
Because we can demonstrated truths from wrong starting points! Example: 2> 3 (false) and 3> 1 (true), which allows to conclude (by transitivity) that 2> 1, which is true, from a mistake.
The disadvantage is therefore that, once you share a postulated truth (even unchecked) there is a tendency to consider all our deductions as valid, and with reason, but forgetting to check the nature of our “first truth”, which is the only guarantee of our armada of deductions…
But as we have seen (I hope you did…) the universality of logic, perhaps we can find our second… first truth…
I propose: “All that exists is possible”! The existence, here, being the proof of this possibility.
But A WARNING!§ Experience has shown me that for most of my contemporaries the words “possibility” and “probability” are synonymous! Probabilities are even driven by a theory and calculation, and this is probably the most deadly poison for Logic, as they give an illusion of certainty, that certainty being precisely the proper domain of Logic. The Taoist sage says “there will be wind”, but he never says when or where it will blow. Indeed, it is sure of the possibility of the wind, but when it will take place and direction are unknown to him. A meteorologist, for his part, says that there will be a 50% chance of having north wind this afternoon! If it is false, this will fall into the 50% ‘chance’ he had in store! So he will always be right, even when wrong!
Take everything I tell you in the usual way. I’m not giving a course in “formal logic” or linguistics, I’m just trying to use words whose meaning does not seem critical and just avoiding things like “formal” and “linguistics”, thus using terms that everyone has a sufficiently coherent idea of, even though we have no way to verify the quality of our agreement about them.
So my meaning of the word possible can carry the idea of an action which is possible to do and that its realization will prove, or a product that can possibly be made, which its existence will demonstrate. Yet it does not imply any obligation on the doing of the action or the existence of the product. But if we witness this realization or this existence, it will be the logical proof, so the certainty, of the reality of the corresponding option. If you ask a guy if he can beat you up, and he answers “Yes”, you do not necessarily want him to prove it to you! It was only a possibility!
Note immediately that if you agree with the fact that: “All that exists is possible”, it is easy to check that that “Everything is possible, exists” is not true!
Therefore notice that, since your body is where it is, that means it has the possibility to be there. But you know it could be at any other place in the room, and all these possibilities do not “exist” yet. We still have to agree on the shade between reality and existence. Reality means one thing (res in Latin) has a factual, while existence (ex-stare = standing out) indicates that it is visible (or perceivable). So in the state of mere possibility, the thing we are talking about is not seen any more than your body in positions where he could be, but the act of moving the body attest to the fact that these options have an effective reality. Yet afterwards, in view of our poor and cumbersome vocabulary, I may happen to speak of the existence of possibilities, and I expect you to understand that I’m talking about their reality…
For mathematicians the number of possibilities –those where your body is not– is already “infinite” and even “more than infinite” because these places are in a “continuous” space, i.e. they are “too many” for us so that we can count them!
The last sentence, taken from their jargon, is completely absurd. If we speak of the “number” of these points it means that we can count them: this is the common definition of numbers and counting. But for mathematicians, the “infinity” of a “continuum” is “greater” than the infinity of “accountable”, whatever the vocabulary they can use to hide their idiocy. The reality is that the two so-called “infinite” are not of the same nature. Something “continuous” has NO elements, and is therefore not a SET, since it is the presence of elements that defines the sets.
Before we go any further, notice you can throw the mathematics of their “transfinite” (?) in the trash. If you believed your math teachers, it is time to wake up, and if you did not understand them, this is also the time to wake up! I borrow from Jean Cocteau one of his lightnings: “If you do not understand, it is that it’s too simple!”
The demo that kills, according to them, is when they show that there are “more” points on a line segment than the number of integers. I will not inflict that on you even if it is particularly simple, because there is a point that allows avoiding it.
Whatever the number of points that you can consider on a segment, this segment is not formed or made of points! Geometric points are not the track that your pen leaves on a sheet of paper, these are concepts at the basis of geometry, which will create space, while having, by themselves, no size (occupying no space). A segment does have a length, and this cannot be derived from any accumulation of things that have no size at all!
On one hand we will be able to say that the point is a geometric ‘nothing’, that is to say, the basis of geometry and space, and on the other hand that, as human beings, we can see as many points on a segment although it is not yet made of hose points.
Casually, we are confronted directly with our difficulties understanding Infinity.§
We have already “found” for it the Logic and the “possibilities” (Logic being one of them). But the existence of segments and space which we saw that they were not composed of elements, also shows us that there is something else than just sets in our infinite, so that the Infinite itself may not even be a set.
So Logic and possibilities are “concepts” that can be identified –by us–, in the Infinite without the latter being formed from a blend of these concepts. It therefore has no elements or parts that would take us back to the idea of a set!
To make your life easier, consider ALL the possibilities, whether they match or not something that exists. The only thing that you miss in this Infinite, is what is NOT possible. But “impossible” is just a word, and is not even a possibility outside the ability we have to see or hear the word in question. If our consideration of ALL possibilities has nothing outside it, it is “possible” that this is indeed our Infinite!
The advantage of the ability to conceptualize the Infinite, is that it makes the American Indians right: “”Everything is connected!” Because everything has a unique source: The Great Spirit! And if we can put (or find) in it whatever we want, the terms of this bond still remain to be discovered, as will be seen later. On the other hand, ecology is not born with leftist ideology! Or Alexis Carrel whom it was mowed from…
Only if we want to have an idea of what we just have to stick to our Infinity (again it will be that we can identify, not what composes it), we will have to see a little beyond the possibilities of where our bodies are and where they could be.
All material things correspond to an indefiniteness of possibilities, including the movements of which they are likely in a world where there is space and time. While we’re at it, space and time themselves, are also two possibilities to put “in” our Infinite!
But if you look in a mirror, where is the space that you think you see in it?
The illusion of space also, is a possibility!
And things are moving in your image, so the illusion of time is also a possibility…
And these illusions are not mere phantasms, they have some sort of physical reality: we can take pictures and movies of them!
Besides photographs, and films have been playing with this for a while but we still have not seen the movie of dog’s coitus producing puppies…
Images of video games and more generally synthesized images, reproduce objects more or less common which everyone knows that they are not even made of recordings of material objects even though they are mimicking their behavior, but we forget we notice the fact that our perceptions of material objects could be but an illusion of another kind.
I.e. the multiple levels of “reality” is also one of the possibilities of our infinite.
And so are our perceptions.§
By the way, how much space do your perceptions occupy?
Or your dreams, your ideas, your imagination?
Do ideas of an architect thinking about building his next 40-storey building cause him a “bigger head” or did not his brain change volume?
It’s all part of the level of reality we call the soul or psyche (the Greek word!), and this is also to be found in our Infinite.
But there is worse stuff!
I told you in my home page that we should not forget to be able to count on your fingers, to avoid to talk about multiplication table, for instance.
But those pesky numbers, are they in the physical universe or in the psychic world?
The physical universe is common to us all, and if we have some capacity to ordinary perception, we can agree on its content.
In contrast, the psychic realm has gives the feeling of an individual concern to us, since we do not see the thoughts of others, usually.
But all human beings who can see the five fingers of their right (or left) hand will agree that 2 +3 = 5! And this time, this is no longer an individual opinion, it comes from the same universal nature that our logic earlier.
So in reality the level of the Universal, one can find many other things that just Logic. We will also find the entire “real math” (those before Descartes and others, or up to Plato, Fibonacci and Ibn Arabi!). « Real » math being those that are universal and not those coming from individual whim, whether the source is Galois, Cantor, Peano or some other.
Do not worry: these are real math were only taught out of spite, and without reporting it, not seeming to have some other source other than the human “geniuses” you should idolize to avoid poor marks.
Casually again, I’m not going to drive you visit this Infinity (inexhaustible by nature), and I’ll just indicate what you can find there as a human being, which is about what I have done so far.
I’m still tempted to tell you things about math that you were never told, and that could reconciled you with those, because I think you have no idea of how it affects you!
Except that I forgot something that concerns us more or less: the possibility of consciousness.
I imagine that it must be clear to you, so the question is: where could we place it!
But, to help you find the answer, I’ll tell you things about math that you have never known! When seeing “stuff”, you say, “a pebble”, “a zucchini”, “a stepmother”… But, do you see what just happened? By saying “a” or “an”, you distinguish something, and adding “pebble, zucchini or stepmother”, you identify the “something” that you distinguished!
This ability to distinguish is your basic operation as a consciousness. The first time you’ve used it is back to your incarnation in this world full of various and different things. You have distinguished your consciousness of all that surrounded it (you). This is your ME! Unless you’ve probably been a little scamp!
You called « I » all of you which makes up your incarnated human compound. A bulk: the spirit (consciousness, your true I/YOU), your soul and your body. But consciousness distinguishes by having “consciousness of differences”, so I must tell you some differences between I, your soul and your body. Your body, for example, that sends you what his eyes and other organs of perception have received so that you can be aware of them. But it only transmits. And it is not the one who tells you that he saw a roller, a zucchini or a stepmother, because it is your consciousness which is in charge of identifying perceptions transmitted by your body. This capability of identification is the second capacity of the consciousness in question. Therefore, by distinguishing, we know that there is “something”, and by identifying, we know “what”.
The distinction relates to the amount (one in this case) and the identification relates to the quality (because even a “stepmother” has a quality!). This capacity of distinction is a possibility that can reproduce as seen, since we distinguished a zucchini and a stepmother outside our I, and if they are given different names to distinguish each new operation they can be counted, and thus simply distinguishing our I, unknowingly we “invented” or “discovered” numbers.
If you are thinking in terms of ranking, their names will be “first”, “second”, “third”, etc.. If in terms of quantity, their names will be, “one”, “two”, “three”, and so on, as you may know. Ordinal numbers are not as interesting as cardinals which allow computations since the order does not intervene. They are pure quantity. We can count in any order, in group them in any kind of packages and more, as you know.
As I mentioned modern drifts, I should speak of them a little so that you understand why you were not enthusiastic in math. First, as we cannot subtract a bigger number from another smaller number, mathematicians have invented relative numbers. Except that they are not really numbers. These are a combination of a number of and a geometric direction from an arbitrary chosen direction on a straight line. In other words, 2-5 indeed makes -3, but “3” is a number, the “absolute value” and the “-“ sign indicates that our “number” is not counted in the same direction as the starting 2 and 5.
In horny efforts for all operations could provide results, we will cheat in the same way with the division. And what the Greeks called ratios or proportions, we will still call them numbers… An obsession? These numbers are called “rational”. But what characterizes the numbers from the origin is that they are all different, because it is precisely the operation of distinction that allows them to differentiate them and allow accounting. You probably know those “rational” under the name of fractions, in which case you know how you can have “equal” fractions: simply multiply the “top” and “bottom” of the fraction by the same number. In other words, 22/7 is the same « number » as 44/14 or 66/21, etc … indefinitely, which makes a lot of “names” for something that should be unique. We could get by if we consider only the “reduced form fractions!” In the example above, 22/7 is such a form because 22 and 7 have no common divisor! It is gibberish again! So if we limit ourselves to reduced forms, all will sound different, although some will be equal to integers. But to avoid this, it suffices to consider an integer as a rational whose “denominator” is 1! 1/1, 2/1, 3/1 etc..
These rational are rather unexpected. If we take any two different numbers A and B, their arithmetic mean (A + B)/2, is between A and B. Their geometric mean √AB and also their harmonic mean 2AB/(A + B), which you never heard of, too are between A and B, and it is something that fascinated the Greeks. So between any two “rational” numbers, we are sure to find at least three other numbers, and we can continue this indefinitely this division using our “intermediate numbers”. Yet there are “holes” » in these rational, and geometry help noticing them. The Greeks understood very quickly that the ratio of the diagonal of a square to its side was not equal to a ratio of integers. Which, by the way, solves the difficult problem of finding solutions to all square roots. Indeed, the square of 1 is 1 and the square of 2 is 4, so there is no number whose square is 2 or 3, and √2 which is precisely the ratio of the diagonal to the side of the square… since this number is not in the list of rational, we will not be able to give a fair value, even having invented the decimal system, because the only reports that this system allows to write must have a denominator made of a combination of powers of 2 and 5 in their reduced form. So √2 is NOT equal to 1.4142135623730950488016887242097, i.e. to 14142135623730950488016887242097/10000000000000000000000000000000! And if we know that the error is less than the last written decimal, we obviously do not know how it is exactly. The Greeks survived it, but how any modern mathematicians could agree to have found a trick that gives false results most of the time?
The 22/7 that we mentioned earlier was the ratio they used most often as a proxy for Π (pi): the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. But they were well aware of it, since when they needed more precision they used the 864/275 ratio instead. To fix ideas, 22/7 is just over 3.1428 …, 864/275, just over 3.1418 … and Π, a little more than 3.14159 … So the first fraction has two exact decimal, and the following fraction 3. Yet Archimedes found its first approximation 2000 years before the invention of integral calculus! Incidentally Archimedes had no computer, but some other unknown found a 355/113 worth 3.141592920353982 with an error of about 0.0000002668: 10,000 times more accurate than 864/275. The following slightly better ratio, my computer has found is 52163/16604, since the error is still 0.0000002662! But the approximations of the Greek have not prevented them from making bluffing geometric constructions, no more than other people of the same age who were able to measure the earth with sufficient precision to make their megalithic alignments without GPS and satellites.
These “holes” in the rational have the irritating feature not to correspond to a general formula, they are discovered as a side effect of a cube root or nth root (n greater than 3, or even any number if the logarithms are used for calculation), or the sum of a series. In other words, the rational are the last “numbers” which have had the list of, or of which you could get the list if we had enough time to make a table of all the couples whose terms are coprime…
Perhaps you have noticed that the numbers are only coming from the ability of our human spirits to make an enumeration by arbitrarily distinguishing what they want. And we took this opportunity to cowardly build our Infinity… In other words, even if what You count seems to exist, this is only your “view of the spirit”. Here is an experience I will use again: distinguish in thought, so without drawing it, a square on your wall or table. This arbitrary square obviously is not constitutive of the material object in which you distinguish it. Like for the points of the segments. But you truly « see » this square! And this method of counting is universal even if the names of the numbers vary from one language to another, the results of a given operation are the same from one end to the other in time and in the universe. While they seem to exist only as and when you operate your distinctions. Do not believe the “inventors” are all the spirits that merely identify by “visiting the universal domain” of the number using it loosely without thanking the Infinite and the ability of their consciousness to differentiate which allows them to do that.
But Infinity allows much more surprising things.§
Since we are imagining virtual square, imagine a circle. Find material circles around you. Do you see anything other than a kind of ellipses, because your eyes are not on their axis? How do you know they are circles without seeing them as circles? Is it not because you have recognized its archetype in the geometric domain? Another puzzle: each of your eyes sees a different ellipse. What is the magical tool which reconstructs the image that you are aware of which none of your eyes has been able to pass you? Scientists will tell you about your brain. People who were lucky enough to have extra bodily perceptions (and not “extra sensory” because they are perceptions …) know that the brain has nothing to do here, especially if they were out of their body. And they perceive 3D images from a single viewpoint, unlike cheating to give the illusion of depth on television or in movies.
We are left with the soul and the spirit. But the soul also is your tool, just like your body. And it has perceptions, like your body, but has no more awareness either since consciousness is YOU! And while what follows is not a true demonstration, its position as an interface between you and your body makes it the ideal agent for your consciousness to be fueled by elements that you can recognize, for the same way that you do not mind your bloodstream and your digestion if all goes well, I guess you do not mind either make your perceptions consistent with the awareness that you can have of geometric realities. In other words, what feeds you with numbers also fed you with all geometric beings you will ever see. Once traced, a point is becoming a spot with a non-zero size. A line is at best a limited segment, hardly straight and with a non-zero thickness, any line, as the circle we were talking of, even so that you can only imagine it, will have a thickness, which is not in the geometrical definition of the circle. A material plane will have limited dimensions and will never be perfectly flat.
Besides, if you request perfection in this world, you are courting trouble. Suppose you want to rotate an shaft in a hole. If the diameter of your shaft is exactly the one of the hole, everything will be stuck. If it is too small, it will vibrate or break. For an shaft to be able to rotate, there must be some space between the two components and this space should be kept between precise values so that the rotation is satisfactory. These values are called the machining tolerance of the parts concerned. And as we see, for the assembly to rotate, this tolerance has an upper limit unlike hysterical advocating universal tolerance, without understanding that it is the very formula of the universal mess…
Let us stay on our circle to discover another surprise, an unexpected impossibility. Something we cannot put in our Infinite! This does not preclude talking about it, since illusions are possible, as we have seen! §
We have seen that all the numbers are different by nature. But all the possibilities that we put into our Infinity because we distinguish them, must also be different, if not we would not be able to distinguish them from each other. I.e. if two possibilities are “the same” it means that there is only one possibility! In other words also, in the same way that two numbers cannot be equal, two possibilities cannot be “equal” either. You may say: “So we cannot solve equations?” Of course we can, if by writing something like f (a) = g (b), we search the functions f and g so that the expressions f (a) and g (b) are the same. Or they are two expressions of the same thing. More generally, when you say that the length of a table is equal to that of another table, this is a misnomer –which has also escaped Korzybski–, the correct wording would be: the two tables have the same length. Because if there is an indefinite number of lengths, each one is unique, and that is why we can imagine building measuring instruments … “What is the temperature indicated by a thermometer?” This question is not a trap! Only one answer: “the temperature of the thermometer”! We’ll just have to manage so that this temperature can also be that which is to be measured…
Among the consequences of the impossibility of equality, we certainly have evidence of the vertical imbecility of egalitarianism, besides we should start building egalitarian stadiums for enthusiastic fans who would no longer beware of winners… (and losers). But there is also the impossibility that a cycle can be closed, since the possibility corresponding to the beginning would be the same as the one corresponding to its end.
You’ll tell me, because you’re really nasty today, you did draw a circle, even with a compass! Look better… If you’re a proponent of heliocentrism, by the time you made your circle, the planet has traveled thousands of miles, and the end of your circle is not identical to its beginning… But even if you are a supporter of geocentrism, between your start and the end of your path, a few fractions of a second happened, so it is now the date that is different…
But whether a change of place or of date, the demonstration that involves only the spatial and temporal quantities may apply only in our physical universe. We must look towards quality for a more universal reasoning. By the way, if you used a stamp to draw your circle on a sheet of paper, everything would have been drawn at the same time, and there would be no beginning and no end to what you just printed. Which better corresponds to its geometric definition. Remember: a circle is the locus of points equidistant from a center on a plane. There is no reference to drawing anything, which would take time and would be incompatible with geometry where time does not apply (which invalidates on passing that a line can be produced by the displacement of a point, that’s mechanics, not geometry!). A “place” is a defined space, such as a segment (one dimension), a surface (two dimensions) or volume (three dimensions, and you are free to imagine extra dimensions… As rehashed, we can find all the items that you want. In the case of a circle, all the points that we will find will be the same distance from the center. And the use of the compass for the physical layout of a circle is a suitable way for this distance to remain the same as it corresponds to the opening of the tool, without it being necessary to ensure that distances are “equal”!
So if we consider the beginning of a cycle, qualitatively, there is still nothing. At its presumed end, however, we will have our “cycle”, so a qualitatively different state from that of the “beginning”. These qualitative differences distinguish the two states that we tend to find “equal”. What we commonly call “cycles” are only apparent repetitions of similar states, such as alternating day/night, seasons, sound vibrations, etc…
To conclude these considerations on distinction, simply note that in the material world, a difference of location in time and space is enough to allow this distinction. Attempts by physicists who fail to put two of their particles in the same place, illustrate the impossibility of strict equality in the physical world… In other areas, we will have to rely on other differences as in the example we have just seen.
This capability of distinction is very valuable for its absence is a serious psychological disorder that leads to amalgam, and whose most common manifestation is racism or discrimination. And this craze of generalization heals very badly! Proponents of egalitarianism therefore only seek to make us crazy!
Yet our consciousness gives us access to the universal domain, and the psychic field and body field alike.
But we still do not have the answer to our question of identifying the domain of consciousness itself!
Come on, we dig somewhat more…§
When you imagine a meeting between Bill Clinton and Mel Brooks, are they in front of you? And do you see them with the eyes of your body? Besides, close those eyes, you will only see the inside of your eyelids.
So avoid putting consciousness in the physical realm. It will save you much other nonsense, as we will see.
The psychic realm is a much better candidate, provided that, when you imagined your two heroes, on my side I have not seen anything, so it seems to only concern you…
But how is it that some of our ideas are common to all of us, without coming from physical perceptions, such as the arithmetic operations we just talk?
Our consciousness seems to be riding or to be at the interface between the psychic domain and universal domain. In fact it is in a domain whose name was ridiculed by his followers as much as by its critics altogether: the spiritual realm!
Its critics simply ignore it because their “world” is limited to the material realm, which they also make the psychic realm dependent on, as Darwin who imagines the mind emerging from matter, or Teilhard de Chardin waiting for his “point Omega” on which evolved man can finally explain to God how to build a world that stands up…
Followers of spiritual on their side, usually play with individual gadgets believing that because they are not material, they are “spiritual” while they have nothing universal. But this confusion of the psychic and spiritual goes back to the beginnings of the Christian era and its roots are much older (at least Aristotle…). Gadgets in question cover chakras, elves and fairies, all things visible under certain conditions, in spite of whatever materialists believe, but have nothing to do with any spirituality, whatever spiritualists.
Now that we have populated our Infinity enough to talk about it, we’ll have to loop on Logic to put some order in it, all that from the standpoint of causality.
This relationship has been classified as “non-rational” by logicians themselves, which are therefore neither the first, nor the last, to be illogical. Rational simply means that two things are related (ratio) with each other. So for our masters, the causal relationship is not a relationship! Logic, right?
But before moving on to that, and to definitely destabilize you, a nasty remark:
We have seen that space and time are characteristics of our bodily universe. Their existence requires a “place” in the Infinite, otherwise there would be a lack in it, but for now we did put them in as a possibility space and possibility of time!
In other words, the Infinite itself has no space, and yet we find there the immensity of the physical universe! No wonder it can cause reflections in the mirrors which do not “exist”!
Could we see an insurmountable difficulty for addicts to math, science and philosophy?
And do not be afraid, theologians do not understand it either!
The Infinite? Full stop! A point that is all!
Yes, but not any point! ² not even a geometric point: just a “potential” point, a “principle” point! One who has no space, but where we can find all the possibilities, and the accomplishments of those that can be accomplished. And the physical space as we know it is “inside” of a thing which has no dimension! Except that the word “inside” means nothing here, because of the lack of space! We should consider layering.
What is stuck in the paradigm of dreamers who want to make everything out of “Nothing at All” is precisely that they have forgotten the “reality” of possibilities that do not need any space to be real, such as the ideas of our architect.
Do you prefer the “short version”?
So consider the Absolute! No special qualifications: just: the Absolute. The closest idea of it would be “EVERYTHING”! Except that EVERYTHING is correlative of NOTHING that looks good too to be Absolute. What makes us an Absolute too many! Unless the two are only one! If the absolute is EVERYTHING AND NOTHING, then the Relative is just something that is not everything and that is not nothing either, in other words, anything which can be given a name, a definition… In other words again, giving a name to the Absolute make it Relative! It does not seem to be out of the trap! Unless one remembers that the hundredth name of Allah, is also something not known to us. So our Absolute resembles very much to our “Infinity point” which, while not being anything by himself, and does not even have a name, no anymore “Infinity” than “Absolute”!
End of the short version…
The Infinity is also as opposed to Nothingness that one can imagine, which is basically the name we gave to the impossibility itself.
Was not I right to place Logic first in our Infinite?
Especially as you have no doubt noticed this rather extraordinary coincidence! We were looking for a paradigm that gives us a vision of the widest possible world. And this paradigm is obviously our starting point, for us humans, our point of view from which we come to understand the universe, i.e. have the capacity to be aware of what we call our “world”, and which is as broad as possible. This dual research led us to consider a truly unlimited Infinite, which is also now being our “point” to start from! Evil, is it not?
There is another much more dizzying reason to that, but we will see it later.
In the meantime, go have fun to put some order into the most amazing mess you’ve imagined!…