A Brief History of Creation

What’s Creation’s loop? Is there something from nothing?

In spite of the fact it is not possible to prove that anything exists beyond ones understanding since any such evidence would involve ones understanding (I discovered it, I discovered it, I thought about it, I calculated it, and etc.), science deals with a so-called objective truth out there, beyond ones understanding professing to describe Nature objectively (as if there was a Nature or fact outside to ones perception). The shocking effect of Matrix was precisely the valid likelihood that what we thought to be reality was our perceptionnevertheless, that was introduced through demonstrating a real reality wherein the perceived reality was a computer simulation. What sort of hardware and Individuals who toy with the thought that really, we’re computer simulations, deviate towards queries, such as, who can create such applications will be needed for such an effort. Though such questions suppose that truth is our understanding, they also axiomatically presuppose the existence of an objective deterministic world out there which nevertheless have to be accountable for how we perceive our reality. This is a major mistake emphasizing algorithms and technology instead of trying to discover also the construction of production and the nature of reality. As is revealed in the next, the essential paradigm shift from perception is the reality repaired inside an objective world, to understanding is reality without the need of an objective world out there, is offered by a lively logical structure. The loop logic is liable for a total and consistent worldview which does not only explains, but also generates whatever could be perceived or experienced.

Stating it is not possible to prove the existence of anything beyond ones perception isn’t saying there is not anything beyond understanding, just that if there is anything, then anything isindefinite. It might be claimed that the existence of laws is evidence of an objective truth. This arrangement is our understanding. It might be argued that when we cannot decide what things to perceive, and everyone perceives the exact same physical reality, then there has to be some lawfulness that dictates how we perceive and therefore, this lawfulness may be outside to our understanding. However, this lawfulness, as we shall see in the future, is that the exact lawfulness that creates comprehension, the method of significance, which isn’t outside to understanding (this process generates the perceived and the perceiver, which then provides significance to this procedure a loop but on that, later). It might be argued, that hitting knee on the table not or if we think in the desk will damage. The table is external to your own body, but not to our understanding. What is understanding? It’s relating, a process of definition, rendering meaningful what has been perceived and thus defining.

What is this procedure for definition? It’s currently creating borders. The term definition stems from the Latin de finire, meaning, making limited or restricted. In Hebrew, definition is HAGDARA (הגדרה), significance, to border. Any definition suggests what the definition isn’t, or stated differently, to have significance, what’s described explicitly contains the significance by excluding everything else. To define means to put the specified object within boundaries that beyond the boundaries of this definition create something by default. What’s this something beyond the defined? The implicitly that the more indefinite, or excluded everything else. The overriding value of integrating the indefinite cannot be overemphasized. The indefinite itself is a believer, also integrating it over the Holophanic logical structure engenders the loop of Creation where the energetic arrangement of paradoxes is both the creative power of existence, and also the evidence of the requirement of existence.

Lets paradoxes and examine the indefinite to grasp the impetus of all Creation. What does indefinite mean? Anything as long as it isn’t defined (not defined); whatever which seems both inside and beyond the boundaries of this definition and therefore rendering the border superfluous, which means, no border, no significance. If nevertheless we would try to define the notion , then thats a paradox because when we succeed, then it’s defined, which contradicts its own meaning its indefiniteness and also the term indefinite means it cannot be defined. That is a good instance of an exaggeration, which in essence means, if it’s exactly what it is, then it’s not what it is, yet if it’s not exactly what it is, then it’s exactly what it is. A matter is a monster which is made up of structure (how it’s defined, the energetic process on its way to stabilization) that exerts its own significance (exactly what it is, the stabilized thing ). What characterizes a paradox is that the movement involving its structure and significance, where the construction implies its significance contradicts its construction, and vice versa.

Another instance of a paradox is wholeness. Wholeness (totality, boundless, boundless) could simply be wholeness when we could get a means to set it so it contains everything and there is nothing beyond it. However, if we define wholeness, to have significance, it must be bordered inside the walls of this definition, meaning there is something beyond that border, in which case it isn’t wholeness. Or at more formal language, wholeness is simply wholeness if it isn’t wholeness, which can be an inconsistency. If we’re happy with that, then we have finished the definition of wholeness. However, if we attempt to incorporate the past created by our past definition inside the boundaries of our next try in defining wholeness, then we get a fresh definition of wholeness, which by the utter construction of this process of defining generates a fresh past . In cases like this, the process of defining wholeness will be consistent but incomplete, and wholeness will remain indefinite.

Considering the paradox of Creation, the ancient Egyptian myth of springs to mind, the myth of this self-creating god, Amun (or Amon). Amun masturbated and swallowed his semen, after which he spit it out in the form of a chunk, thus impregnating his mother, the skies. And was . So Amun was his own father. Those pious who discovered that the illustrated version of this myth in Karnak covered the erect phallus of Amun, and using it, this story of Creation was put into obscurity. The Holophanic model of Creation could regard this Egyptian myth like Amun retromorphously making himself. I have coined the term retromorphous to imply, placing in retrospect, turning non-being to the potential of whatever the observation is created from, or in other words, producing the past from the present, producing the origin from its result, which is the basis of complexity from the context of this loop logic. That is, just after Amun was born will he give significance to his mother, the possibility from which he emanated and also to the process that created him (as represented by childbirth and incest) where he had been born. Needless to say, neither the heavens nor the masturbating Amun have significance until Creation occurs de facto and Amun emerges. I find this enticing illustration of this fundamental paradox of existence.

Just how can there be something from nothing? What’s nothing? Nothing is that which didnt turn into something’s potential. If there was something from nothing, then nothing would have turned into the potential of something, because when we ask, the way can there be something from nothing, we request this question from something, if something already exists. If we have a deeper look at nothing, well discover that nothing really is a paradox. Any definition is something, so if we described nothing, then it might be something, which impacts its character of being nothing. Another way of looking at nothing is by means of it being something that’s meaningless. That is, nothing might be something which does not relate and no thing or nobody relates to. That is, when there was something totally alone in the world, then that would be but it would be meaningless. If this occur, its existence would be outside to our understanding, and as such, this nothing would be indefinite.

We stated that the indefinite could be anything, as long as it’s not defined (not defined). However, if we still attempted to define nothing (the indefinite), what would we buy then? Ever since nothing is non-definable, it’s transparent as the object of the inquiry. So if we try to establish it, all we have is exactly what we put into it, which is the procedure of definition. Nothing remained not anything, we didnt define it, only made the procedure for definition explicit. Nothing gains significance when we fail to define it; but having attempted, we’re left having a bonus, something, which is our process of defining nothing whatsoever. Creation of something from nothing isn’t a function of defining something, but a function of trying to define nothing. And then, if that process of definition which already is an existence looks back in its origins, if this process of injecting inquires into its genesis, then what does it see? It sees itself. It sees that the procedure for definition self-reference.

If there is not anything outside to understanding, then that process of significance would be your total wholeness, the creator of significance when it could relate to itself. However, to have significance, the procedure for definition has to be described; this definition would be a self-referential quasi-infinite and constant procedure for establishing boundaries which make the indefinite beyond which determines boundaries creating the indefinite beyond which determines borders which means, wholeness would always and forever fail to define itself while succeeding to define something but itself.

Needless to say, both the totally defined and the totally indefinite are idealized notions that would be inconsistent with the Holophanic loop logic, nor can they be found in nature. The indefinite would be the complete nothing, because when we would think about it, it might be something, the kind of non-being which can’t be fathomed. On the other hand, there may be no total definition. I have used the term uncertainty of sameness to describe the logical impossibility of overall definition. A defined thing is said to have attained sameness it’s the exact same as itself which means that it’s, it is as something definite, regardless of which parameters described it. But will sameness is achieved by our object than the instability of sameness increases its ugly head. Could it have been described differently? Yes, obviously. Could it have added parameters? Yes, obviously. Could it have been defined more precisely? Yes, obviously. This uncertainty of sameness is that the indefinite contained in the definition, but which is the consequence of including the tools of significance. Considering that a could simply be described as that a with significance if it suggests not-a (the indefinite beyond the boundaries of this definition), and since a may only have significance as a because it differs from everything else (the whatever else would be that the indefinite beyond the boundaries, which actually gives significance to a), the significance of that a is dependent upon not-a.

Then that indefinite is always contained in the procedure for definition, After the significance of something is contingent on the indefinite, on exactly what our defined object isn’t. This logical implication that understanding of significance is only possible if and only when the indefinite is comprised inside the understanding is why the 19th century dream of a consistent and complete axiomatic system using just well defined (explicit) empty signals had to fail (see more about that in my article, The Loop Logic). In spite of the fact that logic would be that the fundament of calculations and computer science, it had neither the aspiration nor the capability to be connected to the real world precisely because its propositions were anemic regarding significance. From the effort to exclude some sign of this indefinite, plausible inference was restricted to a binary sort of universe of true and false and lacking any correlation with lifestyle and experiencing. Including the indefinite in the process of definition makes the loop sense the fundament of existence, but decides the requirement of existence. Together with the birth of Holophany, Heideggers question, Why isn’t anything in any respect, rather than nothing? Becomes immaterial. If existence is relations, and relating is that the action of perceiving, and perceiving is the procedure for definition, then existence is the total lawfulness, the isomorphous lawfulness of this procedure for definition the loop of Creation. What’s being perceived, what’s being stabilized, which significance is brought from the background of this indefinite to the foreground, is dependent on complicated interactions’ non-linear rules. Thus the loop logic highlights the invention of essents instead of their interactions.

Is there a lawfulness accountable for any and each existence? An electron and a dog are extremely different animals; so what imperceptible lawfulness is accountable for the occurrence of both? What kind of lawfulness would fulfill demands? The solution is, isomorphism the exact internal structure that is logical in representations. A dog, whether an electron or the weather, each could be a different realization of the inner logical structure. Production of whatever is that the production of significance, which can be an act of significance. The action of definition trying to establish itself is consciousness. So consciousness, or the spirit if you desire, isn’t some invisible replica of the own body carrying our individuality, however, the lawfulness of Creation expressed as our personal qualitative character. Needless to say, it’s been endlessly stated that we’re related phrases, and God, which we are components of God. That is true, but accurate in the sense that God is your lawfulness that unfolds Creation, also this lawfulness is inherent in all creation including the critters there. It might be contended, a soul is more than mere definitions and intellect. If this logic is that the logic of everything and anything, then it ought to have the ability to delineate the logical structure of expertise also. Indeed.

Anything that’s meaning has to be described, which places it on the scale between the continuous and the discrete, involving the indefinite and the definite. The indefinite, constant, infinite tends in the direction of this futile, whereas the meaningful will be at best imprecise. Expertise is the procedure for trying to define the indefinite. We’re in reality defining our effort at defining the indefinite, As soon as we attempt to catch an adventure within a description. The experience is constant whereas its description, the definition is more discrete. Encounter can never be defined by us, just as we could never define wholeness. Any explanation, any respect, is by nature discrete, whereas the internet experience is constant. So if we have an expertise or understanding and we know getting that expertise, then we give it meaning by specifying exactly what it is. By doing this we create a discrete replica of this adventure, yet the experience remains constant and non-definable, non-discretizable. Expertise is connected to learning. The individual encounters something fresh. How can we understand that something is fresh? As it’s inconsistent with our system. So if we interact with it, we must incorporate it, to assimilate it into our system. If we fulfilled with something which wasn’t brand new to the system, then it would be recognized by our method as a portion of itself. The system is interacting with something fresh when that recognition does not happen. That is the impact. The system adjusts to incorporate. Ones is your path of changes after ones experiences.

Our comprehension of this experience whatever it might be that people experience makes it exist for us. When one is mindful of experiencing, we can say, one only experiences. How can we understand that we’re mindful of experiencing something? We experience the awareness of experiencing, by experiencing it. In this sense, expertise and awareness of this experience, experiencing the awareness of the expertise, being mindful of experiencing the awareness of the expertise, etc., is an infinitely continuous series, which is exactly what defines what adventure is (maybe perhaps not the interpretation of a specific experience, but expertise at its general sense). And thats the definition of expertise: an unlimited loop of this process of becoming aware.

If nothing is that the limit of both the totally indefinite and the totally defined, then theres just such as a circle of going from something to nothing to something , etc.. Understanding is here meant by the going. Nothing is only a notion which has significance if it’s been perceived, in fact. If it is not anything it cannot be defined, and consequently, it has no meaning. Yet when I connect with it, then it’s something. So whenever I connect with nothing, when I say, Creation of something from nothing has meaning for me, and hence, it’s significance. That is, the construction of nothing is the same structure as that of something. Essentially, something from nothing is formation, not Creation, since nothing is also something. Then what is Creation? Creation is rather the production of nothing in something, because Creation is the process of significance, and when we define, we create the indefinite beyond the definition, that in its limit isn’t anything, and only then could we get something from nothing Oh yes, that the loop. There is A loop that is legitimate such if it contains its own origin. If nothing could be demonstrated to exist outside to understanding logic must be a loop, and existence is a logical requirement inferred by the loop.

Including the indefinite in the process of expression has far reaching impacts. It means that the resources of this definition are contained in the definition. It means that significance can only happen when there is both definition and also experience. It means that consciousness (if it succeeds to define or never ) must be a part of science or any so-called objective endeavor. It means that all perception and any includes expertise. The interaction using the indefinite is what gives significance to the defined. Perception definition, may only happen in a flexible complicated system which could learn and transform. Thats the gap between us and an electron, which only has fixed interactions that are restricted, and therefore, relationships. With exactly what it succeeds in discovering an electron always succeeds in discovering, or it might be more correct to say , it could interact. If it experiences the indefinite, it presumes a state of superposition.

Where is God at Creation’s loop? If we wanted to define the totality, God , we could not define God, because by the action of definition we would create the beyond, what’s beyond God, which contradicts Gods totality. No significance of God will do justice and each definition would truncate wholeness. If God is indefinable God is indefinite. If God is indefinite, then I create God because each definition, by the implication of this action of definition any respect generates the beyond, the indefinite beyond the boundaries of the expression. In that way, this is in accordance with the statement I create God with my understanding (definition). This does not say that I perceive God, however, my perception suggests the occurrence of the indefinite (God). This means that when a dog is perceived by me, this understanding suggests the existence of God. If I perceive I perceive implies the existence of God. Should dust, an idea, a desk is perceived by me, anything, then that suggests the existence of God. If I experience, then this implies the existence of God. Thats because any existence implies the existence of God. And thats because any existence is like it relates or is related to, if it’s significance, if partially it’s been defined, meaning, its mere definition suggests that the indefinite beyond the boundaries of this definition, it suggests God, the indefinable. So one cannot immediately perceive God (maybe that’s the reason why it had been stated in the Bible which nobody could see Gods confront and live = exist no man shall see me and live Exodus 33: 20), but just understand about God by response, which means, the implication of this indefinite God is exactly what characteristics significance to any existence.

But, God does not equivalent , but that the process which suggests the occurrence of the is what could be regarded as God, since thats the process of Creation. Here is the procedure for Creation that both generates existence, something, the indefinite, and also nothing. That is precisely why this logic is a loop.