top of page

the annihilation of nothing and the advent of existence

Everything is made of something.

Nothing is made of nothing.

And do not be so foolish as to equate “0” to nothing.

“0” is something. And its presence brings with it tenants of reason, which is something.

Nothing is not a vacuum. It is not empty space. It is not even infinity. It is No Thing and therefore bears no meaning. And it is all pervasive. For if something were to exist, it would infinitely replace nothing. Our so called “laws of the universe” point to it, just as they point to the concept of infinity, which is also incomprehensible, in spite of our awareness of it.

Aristotle’s definition of nothing is the closest one can come to its comprehension: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”

Curiously, there cannot exist one elemental thing. One thing is not enough to exist. For, one thing existent alone is singularly pervasive and equally as meaningless as nothing. And the absence of meaning is nothing, for something has meaning, nothing does not, not only that, but there is no object to which its meaning (if it had any) to be meaningful to. There is no “quantum observer”. If it is not ______, then it is not. It cannot be a question mark. Again, “Nothing” is pervasive. Everything is nothing, or nothing is nothing. The advent of “something” then, means that the “something” is everything. If there is but one thing, and it is not, then it is all of nothing, and “nothing” is everything.

Two things cannot exist.

Only three can. The introduction of a second thing brings with it a third, for two things relate. Relationship is as elemental as the elements it relates and does not exist between fewer than two of them.

0 + 1 = 3

Therefore, there is nothing if there is not three things. And the advent of existence is the advent of meaning, for meaning is not existent apart from at least two different elements in relationship which can then bear and emit meaning through the relationship of more than one pervasive thing and meaning is then born through relationship of two different elements which have meaning one to the other. For if the two elements were the same, there would be no meaning one to the other, therefore no relationship would exist between them for they are the same and then only one thing, which, again, is nothing.

If you now say there are more than three elements, you have surpassed the fundaments of existence. Therefore, the basis of everything existent is only exactly the three elements with which existence is comprised. To say that there is a fourth element is to say that it exists, and nothing can exist if not existent of three elements, and if that already exists, existence is “accomplished” and infinitely pervasive, leaving no room for anything other than its triune singularity.

For none of the three elements exist alone. They cannot. They are existent only in this trinity. This trinity alone exists. It is everything that is and all that there is. Its presence eternally displaces “Nothing” which, by its own definition, never was.

3 = 1

Because it is all that is, and pervasively existent, and there can be no room in existence for any other thing, the question arises as to the nature of the “visceral” existence of our universe. It seems reasonable to believe that it may be comprised of a seemingly intentional and intelligent projection/emission of this trinity. The “universe” would not then be infinite, per se, but infinitely comprised of infinity through projection/emission thereof.

This non-lineal, third party projection concept gives room to the inclusion of otherwise incompatible rules such as the conundrum of Quantum Theory vs. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. These rules do not have to be relative to each other, only bonded, and there are likely others, yet undiscovered, beyond the range of our current capacity to observe.

Implications of the Projection concept

This concept serves to raise more acute reason regarding the nature of our context of thought toward our visceral existence and environment. Science is but discovery, measurement, and attribution of meaning, (tools such as mathematics are but derivatives thereof). It is a product of the human drive to project meaning upon its environment. (A seeming and curious shared attribute with this trinity.) To ascribe meaning, we must have knowledge. To gain knowledge, we must measure. To measure, we must have “size”. Size is a human construct bounded by linear human thought process, but it works fairly well. It is helpful but not reasonable. In order to establish a baseline from which size can be derived, we must have a universal constant. But there is no edge against which to calibrate our measurement…so we made ourselves the baseline, (the ancient unit of measure called the Cubit, for example, is the distance between a human’s elbow to fingertips, approximately 18 inches.) Everything is either bigger or smaller than us. In front of or behind. Closer or further. Faster or slower. We created measure to inform quantity, which we created, then we began to see the entirety of existence through this self-created lens. Then we taught ourselves to regard human perspective as an infallible universal baseline. Then we taught ourselves to regard anything beyond our ability to quantify by rules of our own rudimentary contrivance as absurd.

Our visceral existence does however seem reasonable because most of it that we can measure complies, of course, with the fixed nature of our systems of measure. It might well be that we will never understand those things of our existence which do not cooperate with the rules within which our systems of measure are bounded. For if visceral existence is infinitely comprised of infinity, no constant exists nor can. The statement itself: “uniform infinity” is absurd.

45 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page