squish7.com /meta

LINKS   Wiki Metaphysics  .  Aristotle Metaphysics  .  Stanford Encyl Metaphysics  .  Ontology

"All that's thought or said must Being be."


Metaphysics--and religion and science--ask what there is, who is here, how things function, and so on.  I will attempt to examine these issues from what I believe to be an extremely concrete, tangeable system, such as evaluating your soulmate with calculus.  I believe that all the questions of life are answered mathematically by examining the perfect exact working system of the running computer program--being--generated by the unflawed and perfect system "zero."  Nothingness breaking apart.

Much of our discussion may not seem practical, but really, it is very worthwhile: the issues of how much life exists, how it is sustained, how things flow, are not just random philosophical ponderings, but are as practical as things like knowing our next door neighbor, of how many people populate our planet and how they function together, of knowing whether there is other intelligent life in our galaxy, of having a relationship with our soulmate and friends. Just knowing who in infinity is high, low, or neutral, is as massive as having an understanding of heaven and hell and purgatory. Knowing how many beings there are in infinity is as important (if not more) as taking census to see how many people we share our city or world with. And when we know the general basic truths behind all that is -- the skeleton of the universe -- then we can practically apply this knowledge (if our theme is right) to all the tangeable areas around us, fields of study; science, religion, psychology, etc, and we will attempt to do just this once we have a firm grasp of the basics of existence.

Let us start examing the metaphysical consequences by examing what we should name our subject matter. Philosophy talks about whatever there is: Being. Our study is of perfect inversions and partial oppositions within Being, sustaining it's existence, the truth of the universe lying at the heart of Being. We might call our topic Inverted Being, or Un-being (not Nonbeing), but if all that is has an inversion, this is simply another way of saying Being. Consider a square, half white and black. If we're to study the inverted square, we have respectively black and white, so taking all within Being, then inverting, we get generally the same thing as Being. Our study is how Being is sustained via inversions within itself, the idea of inversion within the square, so we might then call our subject "Self-sustained Being", and shall use the prefix un- to discuss an inverted thing, action, feeling, or idea, within this category of everything, but finally, I have decided to name our topic something similar, "Symmetric Being."

(Parmenides and others talk of a category called Nonbeing, or sometimes "unbeing." "Unbeing" is conflicting, as we'll use the prefix un- to name our inversions, and Parmenides is certainly not talking about these inversions; our inversions might actually be considered less than Nonbeing, subtractions from what can't be. Hence if we talk about Parmenides' topic, we shall use the term "Nonbeing".)

Now how has all of Symmetric Being, all there is, come into existence? What is there, what has been created, what life exists and how does it function? As for how anything exists, I present fractals as an example of infinite complexity coming from extraordinary simplicity, a simlpe equation, z=z2+c. This generates infinite explorable self-similar pictures, like our self-sustained reality. And we can apply fractals to life as well: trees and ferns seem fractal-like, and in greater complexity, all can be seen as part of a vast fractal. So what could have remained nothingness, zero, infinite simplicity, has somehow generated a vast realm of existence (or perhaps been brought into existence, if we allow some god that can tear this nothingness apart any way he wishes); our simple rule that love is perfect rape and form requires un-form has given nothingness the power to do this, to break itself apart.

Let us evaluate many different possibilities and explore their various combinations, forming all our possibilities of what is real and true, keeping in mind the nature of reality is as solid as mathematics in that exactly one of the permutations of the many possibilities we have raised is true, is the way things work and function. 2+2 is always 4, and pi always has infinite digits (only math is truly unchanging, science can even change from time to time, or from one system to another). Likewise, either there are infinite souls, or there are two, or ten, etc. Either infinite joy is possible, or it isn't, it cannot be both possible and impossible. Our analysis of reality does not include various possibilities to be believed and hence allow some to have substance just because some people believe one thing and others another, like various religions that each have a certain value. Only one of our realities is exactly true.

As I've said I'll keep many of my opinions on which one this is to myself (I would do so even if I knew absolutely the answers, especially then) and allow the reader to evaluate and come to conclusions. But the reader should appraoch the investigation of what is true the way math investigates whether a theorem is true or false, which mathemeticians eventually prove or disprove beyond any doubt, and while there can be no absolute proof in our investigation, some will undoubedly come to the correct and true conclusions, whatever they are, and to whatever extent we can know and percieve them (see our knowledge section), while others will not.

We'll start our investigation of all possible worlds with the potential rejection of our thesis. To truly include all systems for the reader to decide which is true, we will even include the possibility that life does not actually require perfection inversion, that joy is not rape, though this is the one absolute belief of mine (that it is rape) I will admit fully and not hide, allowing the reader to disagree. From everything we have put forth for the theory of inversions, what would it mean if life did not require opposition to exist? This is the other possibility: that it doesn't, that every feeling exists intrinsically, internally, that does not require any relationship to any other, a lifelong dream that doesn't harm anybody. That if I were alone, or am alone, in all of existence, I could still be happy, with no suffering, and that suffering happens to exist when it very well couldn't. That all conflict is there by chance, a utilitarian society where everyone is happy without cost quite possible.

Now how many beings are here? What is life? If life requires inversion, then we must have at least two souls, two beings, in existence, if we have any. But is it just two? Is it sometimes none? Could three souls sustain eachother, or four or fifty? Perhaps the number must be even, a soul for every un-soul. Could it be just one, if we reject our main theory that life requires inversion? Could I be the only soul in the universe, a universe where one person is conscious: you (or me, whichever is thinking right now)? If so do I stay put or shift around? Are there uncountable souls and life, or perhaps infinite life? If there is infinite uncountable life, could there be more? Is there only a limited infinity of possible souls, with the potential for more that do not exist, or are things so vast that every possible soul exists? What does nothingness splitting itself apart create?

If life requires inversion, how are these souls self-sustained? Do we have a system in which divides itself into pairs, one soul for every soul who feels that souls inverse, each requiring nothing else to exist? Or are there groups, limited in number (ten here, fifty there), that collectively feed off eachother? Or lastly, do all souls everywhere feed off eachother in a vast equilibrium? Each single soul requiring every other to exist? Taking some from one, and some from another. And if life does not require inversion, is there any relationship at all between one soul and another?

Up until now we have talked of perfect inversions sustaining Being. We should now consider the more complex glue of partial opposition in our investigation how things are sustained -- things or ideas opposed to eachother but that are not total inversions, as a way Being is self-sustained and self-relating. For instance, hot is opposed to cold. This is very close to inversion, yet these ideas have similarities: they are both temperatures, they are both measured on the same numerical scale, they both describe to what extent atoms are vibrating, whether a lot or a little. But they are close to inversions; we have an intuitive feeling, sensing hot and cold, that one is the other's opposite. We'll extend this to claim that one actually supports, feeds off of, is much sustained by, the other.

We can have a less polarized example. A dog can be opposed to a cat. Indeed they may have more in common than not: both are animals, within our realm of Being, with four legs and two ears each. But they can also be enemies. One can or torments the other. That they can be opposed is obvious, but that the opposition (partially) supports the very existence of life is the new thing, the more subtle yet fundamental concept.

As for other examples, consider a white vs a black cat, fire vs water (both elements, but somewhat opposed), high vs low: above (a positive concept) and below (a negative concept) an average measurement; 33 to -33, numbers not perfectly inversed because they're both numbers on the same scale, but very opposed, and 500 and -893 being more opposed (though the second example is less an example of perfect opposition, as 33 and -33 is a much better example of a partial perfect inversion). A sport requires partial opposition, but all is played by humans. And indeed any of our examples that we've raised that provide partial evidence for our main theory of perfect inversion, are examples of partial opposition, things that partially support existence.


Let us examine what we call "life." We might be tempted to think that the life that is required to sustain us is not life at all, but less than life, not worthy of us considering its feelings. Here we'll introduce a difficult concept that will come up many times and will help us understand the relationship between inversions: the idea of absolute value of mathematics. The absolute value of -5 and 5 are both 5, the distance each is from zero, whether one way or the other (designated by the symbol |5|). So our idea on our side of life, of consciousness, could apply to both sides, that a tear creates consciousness in two directions, two additions to nothing. I think, therefore something else also thinks. Or we could consider this two subtractions: two things tearing, two things less than nothing: I un-think, and so does that supporting me.

Consider two opposite colors: orange and blue, both allowed because of the other. How would we decide if one is existant, and the other less than existent? The absolute value is that a tear has been created in both directions. Both a subtraction from nothing, or both an addition to nothing (what we'll call a subtractive or additive tear), but both basically the same thing: both a tear. Surely the same thing is going on in each direction: two existent colors have been created, or perhaps un-created; both exist, or perhaps un-exist. This could be applied to feelings: a similar thing has happened in each direction. All is life: our perception of what's gone on. All is un-life: another point of view. Or, the reader might disagree and suppose that he is, while his inverse is in fact less than existing and not worthy of consideration. Also, we might even say things half-exist. Half of the other. I half-think, therefore something else half-is.

How about non-life: substance and matter? If existence has created some number of beings, do we say that it has created innanimate things as well? A rock or chair as well as a dog or man? We might say that an object only has existence if it is being thought of or experienced, so if no one is thinking of an orange, it does not exist, and vanishes when it passes out of thought (along with the un-orange). Or that it only exists in the world of the perciever, and not to anyone not seeing or thinking it. Or we might say that objects could actually exist independent of thought and life, a chair floating in the middle of nowhere that a soul might see or think of, or not, existence a mix of objects and beings. Lastly, we might define the existence of matter to be anything that can be potentially thought of. That an orange exists absolutely, always, in that at some point, someone could think of it. We might distinguish the idea of potential orange from actual (thought of) orange.

There is also the issue of magnitude. Whether an orange exists vaguely in the back of my mind, or whether I'm juggling three bright, juicy oranges in front of me. Or even further, that I am a being composed of all oranges, in a bright, all-orange planet or realm. We should consider the range of potentiality and actuality; the extent and magnitude to which an orange can be thought of, or is thought of. A sliding scale which something can exist more than at other times.

We might ask, when we see or percieve a dog, is this simply an inannimate object I am allowed to percieve because something feeds me the sensation my sensing an un-dog? Or is it in fact living? This is difficult, especially because of the gray spectrum of living vs innanimate. A rock might seem completely innanimate; a smart computer, or yogurt cultures or sperm, or a very young fetus, might all seem slightly alive; an android, bacteria, or eight-month fetus seem much more alive, and a human or dolphin or android that has achieved sentience we consider fully alive.

We have examined a world of souls come into being from nothingness. Possibly all the souls in existence simply are or aren't, on or off, that nothing can be alive only somewhat. If this is so, and somewhere there is a soul fully conscious of being a rock, or fetus, or android, whatever that feels like, then our percieved spectrum of living vs innanimate (i.e. a growing fetus, along this spectrum) could be one of two things (or both): a partial ignorance on our part that that thing can be alive, i.e. human bias of what's alive (if we totally ignore that a rock can be alive, then we are fully ignorant of its full, conscious life, or can be partially ignorant of that life), or a gray area where we're not certain whether we're thinking of a fully living or fully dead object: if we allow fully dead rocks (potential or actually thought of) as objects somehow, and allow fully living rocks, then our grayness might be our confusion or lack of specification of whether we're thinking about one or the other.

Now if we allow a universe in which things can actually be partially alive, the partially aware fetus, we complicate things. First our spectrum of living vs dead, allowing slightly alive, might correlate directly to the things that are, in fact, slightly alive. And/or it could still refer to how ignorant we are of how alive the thing is, and/or to what extent we're not specifying whether we're talking about a partially alive thing, or an innanimate object which can never be alive.

We can extend all these ideas of life and innanimacy to feelings, ideas, thoughts. Does a feeilng, idea, or thought, not exist at all if no one is percieving it, or have some existence floating around by itself when unnoticed, and/or does it exist potentially, and then sometimes actually? Can an idea have life? And extension to math: are there mathematical truths that exist apart from any perception of them? And what magnitude do I percieve an equation? A light thought in the back of my mind, or posted on a huge blackboard consuming all of my mental energy?


Consider the set of all possible feelings of these living beings. Is everything fathomable thought actualized every moment, the way Parmenides says? All magnitudes of orange, all unicorns, all people, across a network of infinite souls, whether we consider objects to exist outside of thought, and/or to be potential or actual or both? This seems one thing the simplicity of nothingness is likely to do: simply create everything. Or does a subset exist? A few unicorns, a handful of people? Or an infinite handful but still not everyone who could possibly exist? Could nothingness generate seeming randomness instead of everything: randomly and chaotically breaking itself apart?

Is there permanence in these worlds? Is whatever exists -- whether one person (if we break from our thesis), or two, or infinite, whether in a sea of all states possible, or a random set of states -- permanent and unchanging? Always just one unicorn, always just one city, always everything possible? Or does nothingness allow different sets to exist at different times? Might a galaxy of a quintillion lifeforms pop into existence for three seconds, then collapse and fall back to nothingness? Or just a pair of souls? Could there be times when absolutely nothing is going on anywhere, a void, where only the potential for future things exist (surely there is not always nothingness, assuming you or I am aware of something at the moment I'm typing)? And if I collapse to nothing, am I gone, or will my soul be recyled to something when I exist again? Might we revise Descartes to say: I think now, therefore something is now, and hence an un-something exists now supporting me (though both may vanish)?

Thales believed and Buddhists believe in the immortality of the soul. Our theory may allow this if there is permanence, or dissalow it if there is not. Some ancient Greeks considered the cosmos to be immortal and unending, and so our system may allow this on the grand scale if there is permanence, or disallow it if there is no permanence. Heraclitus believed in an everchanging fire; perhaps souls flow around chaotically, everchanging, or perhaps not. Our theory gives answers to age-old questions from a new crucial direction, depending on which aspect of our theory is the way things actually are.

We should make a distinction between possible states or cells, and souls occupying those states. Our issue is now more complex: first we have the issue of whether there is permanence of potential states, and how souls flow between whatever states are possible. Could there be empty states? If there is an infinite permanence; all thought of, all the time, then are souls frozen in their place, one for every state, designated to always be in that state? (Someone always a unicorn?) Or, do all souls flow between all these states (whether infinite states or limited), as in the flow of life, and from life to life as reincarnation, a soul a penguin, then a butterfly, instead of eternal frozen penguin? Or is there a mix: some souls shifting, some in permanence? If they do flow, do they flow chaotically, or in predictable patterns, and can we have any idea of what path we're traveling? Is our lifepath an illusion?

When we are at a state, is that state new? Have we been exactly there before? Or can we never step twice into the exact same waters? We might suspect that in all of infinity, we must have experienced all states, and will again. Or, we might consider that one state is never exactly the same as another. If I'm in a pond now, and I change to a different pond, then a different, then a different, perhaps in the infinite potentiality of things, the pond will never be exactly the same, always tiny differences in the water when i return to a similar state, never the same snowflake, or patches of color on a butterfly; and then when I apply this to my extended my past and future back or forward, it might be that I can never find an example of reaching the same state; never have, never will; perhaps, every feeling I feel completely new in the entire history of existence, because I can never find an exact example of it in my infinite past.

A big issue in philosophy is change. When a person's personality or looks change a little, are they a slightly different person? What if they become a frog? Does water change to air when boiled away? Is an acorn the same thing when it grows to a tree? When the tree is cut into wood? Is a boat a boat as it is slowly dismantled? Our theory has an answer: one potential state of mind might be similar to another. A person in a red room might be somewhat similar to a monkey in a purple room, so that if souls do flow between states, one might flow from being the person to the monkey. There has been a change, but not totally. In this case we'd define the entire loss of identity as a change from one state to the total inverse state, that has nothing in common. We might also consider that a soul might "blink" instantaneously to another state, instantaneous change, not requiring time to flow there.

[There are actually states in which one has less in common than one's perfect inverse: the greater magnitudes of that inverse. Consider a black square, the inverted white square of the same magnitude of white, then a more white square, a lit square, a square as bright as the sun, and onward, along an infinite path, less and less in common with our original square, greater and greater loss of identity. This is interesting to our investigation of change because it shows how something can change more and more from its state without limit, always losing more of its identity].

If a soul flows from state to state, consider its path. A soul may take a direct or indirect path to another state. What would a direct path feel like? If we were flowing directly to becoming our perfect inverse, then our world and senses would simply fade to gray, hover at gray for a tiny moment, and then everything would fade inversely back up; un-body where I had body, white where there was black, etc, similar to what happens when we invert a picture in paint or photoshop. Or we could experience a direct path to random state A and random state B, which are not perfect inverses (the more likely scenario, considering out of every state in all of infinity, only one is the perfect inverse, so we'd likely be going somewhere else, with only an infinitesimal chance of going to our perfect inversion). We should assume that the simplicity of this system allows for any state to fade to any other state, the way a color might fade to any other color in the color spectrum.

So if I were to change from human to dolphin (let's say I lay down, face-forward, to make the transtition easier), I would feel my senses slowly change: my eyes would slowly become dolphin eyes, my limbs would begin fusing with my body, a fin growing out of my spine, my feet becoming a tail, water forming around me replacing air, my breathing closed off as a dolphin only breathes when on the surface of the water, my intelligence becoming slightly reduced. The half-way point would not be gray as in heading from form to perfect un-form, but would be like the picture of a half-disolved human and half-disolved dolphin in photoshop, every sense half way to its destination. This transition would be interesting to experience, and can easily be made practical: perhaps science could someday figure out what configuration of the human brain would cause it to feel dolphin form, as we're already capable of feeling this; people experience being animals in dreams.

And of course there are indirect paths: instead of red to yellow through orange, red shifting to various colors for awhile before finally reaching orange. Baby to teenager to adult to old man, rather than just morphing from baby to old man. Perhaps this path is totally random, nothingness generating chaos, or perhaps it is perfectly ordered. I'll note the possibility that the path can never be a perfect transition from one to the other, like never being able to draw a perfect line between two points, perhaps it is always slightly squiggly, and in the case of going from state to perfect un-state, we would not pass through perfect gray, but always slightly around it. Not perfect half-dolphin half-human, but slightly around it.

Practically, these transitions are our explaination of reincarnation: animal to dolphin. They're also our answer to evolution, which would be defined in our theory as a set of certain states that a particular set of souls occupy for a limited time (conscious monkeys), where the states shift very slowly over time to other states, and souls drop out of this set as others come in, in a generation replacing all souls with other souls (in millions of years, and thousands of generations of monkeys gone by, the souls occuppying those states are more human), where some single soul might have traversed the monkey-to-human path in a single lifetime. If we examine detours, then life may take many paths from one form to another, as monkeys did not evolve to humans, but both have a common anscestor which went two ways.

There is the issue of the realization of the path we're traveling. If I transition from a man in a forest -- believing he has been born from the womb and will grow old and pass on to death (the soul returning to nothingness in our theory) or pass on to another life (reincarnation, moving on to a much different form) -- to monkey in a forest roughly believing the same things (to a lesser extent), then each perception of his timeline is off. At every moment in the transition, the man (or monkey) would believe that he has been born, that time is passing in a certain way. He would not notice the change going on.

If we flow randomly and chaotically from state to state, Heraclitus' fire in flux, or even if this change is ordered, then perhaps we have absolutely no idea which path we're actually traveling; we only associate with a certain path (a solid lifeline, or even a more complex idea of life that could go one direction or another, a map of many paths), which we likely are not traveling, since that is just one path among an infinite many, but since it could be traveled occasionally, has substance in some way; our perception of it is not fully false, in that it is potentially traversed. (Our association with a path can be thought of as crossing the vertical path horizontally for one moment, while believing we're following the path). Or could our belief in our path actually be correct as we think it is?

Another issue is whether we have to flow (over time), or could blink to a state instantaneously. Whether life is a system of one or the other, or neither (a nonchanging set of states), or both. Could I be flowing between limited pain and joy, then suddenly blink to an infinite heaven or sky of infinite joy (if infinite joy is possible)? Could I blink from donkey to organic cube? Can a blue ball turn red instantly, or must it shift there? Could movement in three dimensional space be seen as a flow from one state (the feeling of being at a location), to the feeling of being at another location, wormholes allowing a faster transtion. Or could we simply blink instantaneously at times from one position to another?

We have considered that existence is Heraclitus' chaotic fluxing fire, but let us also consider in contrast that life might allow perfect mathematics: perfect circles, perfect parabolas, perfect sine waves. A soul might pass in a sine wave from joy to pain to joy to pain, hitting neutral for that exact moment when it crosses the x-axis, with no deviation from that perfect path. Or a horizontal line above or below our x-axis of time and the y-axis of joy/pain: a soul always at a unit of 44.7 happy. Perhaps such a line could blink to another value, the blink represented on our graph by a finite vertical line connecting line A to line B. Perhaps all is perfect mathematics, perhaps the chaos, or perhaps both. [future insertion of diagram]


We've now raised many possibilities. Let us consider some combinations that might be true in our search for which is correct. First, consider that some of our possibilities are completely logically impossible: if life requires inversion, and there are only two souls in the universe, always in the same state, then we cannot have every fathomable state occupied. If we have a donkey and un-donkey with no orange in sight, then nowhere is there an orange thought of. This set (inversion allowed, two souls, always existing, with all fathomable states occupied) is logically impossible and cannot even be considered. It falls within Parmenides' nonbeing. We might even say that all these possibilities except the one that is true (the one we're looking for if we can know it at all) all ultimately fall within nonbeing and impossibility, but perhaps have some kind of existence that they can be thought of, even if it is a false belief.

A random example: a universe with exactly seventeen souls which all sustain eachother, can't exist without eachother, but which can all blink to nothingness, or reappear, at any given time, and which function mathematically, not chaotically, spinning in sine waves and circles and lines, and flow between a limited number of possible feelings while alive, a set of feelings that is set randomly each time the seventeen souls pop into existence. Second, a sea of infinite and immortal beings, some of which are either infinitely happy or sad, which blink back and forth between the two, some of which are only partially alive, only partially aware, of that infinite joy or pain, and other souls which are either partially or fully aware of a limited and measurable joy or pain.

A third example, as close to the Christian model we can get in our theory: a system of infinite souls, some of which are created at a random moment, popping into existence, then spend a finite amount of time flowing between joy and pain via the free will of the soul, which then is judged and blinks or shifts to a heaven of perhaps limited, or perhaps infinite (but surely eternal) joy, or a hell of limited or perhaps infinite (but surely eternal) suffering. Also, a special three souls, the trinity, God, Christ, and Holy Spirit, which have always existed and always will. A God that can tear apart nothingness to create life (which is perhaps limited by our rule of life is only possible via inversion, explaining why God must create suffering), and which interacts with the beings which are alive on Earth for a finite period before relocation to a timeless heaven or hell.

These examples might sound very theoretical or unpractical -- a game unapplicable to the real solid world -- but I ask you to consider that what we're doing is just as concrete and tangeable--if not more--as any other particular religion or worldview or philosophy.  We're trying to answer the same questions any other discipline asks such as how we're here, what or who else is there, etc, from what I believe to be a more solid, mathematical approach than any other--automatic concrete answers to life that are as solid as calculus.  We're observing all the main answers about life by examining the perfect exact mathematical system of the vast running computer system "zero."  Nothingness.


We have raised many possibilities but argued little. Let us argue one particular possibility that will let us understand our main theme a little better, if this possibility is true. We have seen that there is much partial opposition sustaining reality's existence, which we use as evidence that life actually requires a perfect, absolute inversion to exist, which is visible only through logical deduction. But how is this single twin inversion sustained as we flow through time?

The general relationship we've implied so far in saying that the self has an un-self, is that the self and un-self are two souls in combat. We've implied that if we walk around for awhile, then something is un-walking around, feeding us our feeling. But consider a possible revision: that a soul is our un-self for exactly one moment, that what we think of as un-self is actually an array of infinite life taking infinitesimal turns occupying that exact inverse, that state. This would challenge our previous idea of the un-self being a soul supporting us for any period of time. A proof is as follows.

If we were to take a pen and draw a scribble on a piece of paper, we can say this scribble is unique in space-time, for if we tried to draw the scribble again, we would fail to perfectly replicate it, and again and again. If everyone in the galaxy drew a scribble, we see no one would draw the perfect, exact same scribble. If we extend this search outward to all of infinity looking for a duplicate scribble (start with us, then the planet, the galaxy, a billion galaxies, etc), we will never find a duplicate scribble; mine is unique, and in this way my life path is unique. Applying this to inverted being ('being' the verb, lowercase 'b', i.e., applying this to the action or nature of being inverted), we would see that there is no perfect inverse scribble either -- the white un-scribble on black un-paper. (If we can't find an exact pi anywhere among a bunch of random irrational numbers, then certainly we can't find negative pi either).

So if we can't follow the same inverse path as another, yet if we must have an inverse to exist, a perfect un-self feeding us the feeilng of scribbling by sensing the white un-scribble and black un-paper, then we must conclude that someone supports that feeling for only one instantaneous moment at a time. We can never narrow down a period where two people share the exact same path, so there is no one being for any period of time who is my un-self and allows my existence (which we seemed to imply by our previous mentions of what an un-self is); there is just an infinite handful of people who each support my existence for one exact moment. If this is right, it complicates our perception of the word "un-self"; it is no longer a being, but a set of an infinite number beings. We might even say "un-selves" instead. I exist because of my un-selves. I think, therefore infinite things un-think (if this argument is correct).

As if this weren't enough to reject our previous idea of what the un-self was, consider furthering the argument as follows. If we can't find an exact inverse match to our scribble, how can we be aware of the scribble even for a single moment, if there is no perfect inverse to support us in that moment? If we look for an exact duplicate of ourselves, starting by searching the Earth, we find similar people, with blonde hair and green eyes, but never our exact shade; people similar to us but never exact; not here, not the galaxy, etc, not even a twin or clone (The exact same genetic code is like the exact same recipe for a cake: the cake will undoubtedly come out slightly different every time). And hence, wouldn't it be impossible to find anybody exactly unlike us to support our existence at any given moment? To support our existence.

We've reached an extraordinary conclusion, which seems devistating to our belief that life requries perfect inversions to exist: If we cannot find an exact inverse self, then a soul not only cannot be our inverse for any period of time, but it also cannot be our perfect inverse for even a single moment. This seems to contradict the heart of our thesis, that all of existence depends on life having some inverse somewhere, that partial opposition reveals the nature of reality that existence has in fact perfectly torn itself apart, a perfect negative for every positive.

Our solution -- a fusion of the two ideas -- is as follows. Since we can find someone more and more like us, and hence find an inversion more and more unlike us, then the idea of the un-self supporting us is the limit as we approach this unreachable extreme, the sum of all the infinite closer and closer matches. If we have a sea of irrational numbers, and I try to find a negative match to mine (let's say 45.08265..), I will find -30.93483, and -44.13092, and -45.08867, and so on, matching more and more significant digits, never ever the perfect match, never matching the last digit at the end of infinity.

And if I can only exist because of inversion, and there's no perfect inversion, then I must conclude I'm sustained by multiple souls at the same time: dependent more and more the closer we come to my perfect inverse. Much of my scribble is torn from a vaguely similar inverse scribble, much of my joy from someone in almost as much pain. And even more is torn from somone with a closer inverse match to my scribble, or my feeling. Close to being able to sustain me alone, but not quite. The sum of all these closer inversions achieving the infinite perfection to sustain me. This is also a proof that consciousness is self-sustained by multiple souls, feeds off more than one, in fact infinite, at a time. (Do we need all of them? Or just many?)

Our definition of un-self was disturbed before by supposing the un-self was actually an infnite line of souls sustaining us for a moment. Now that we've shown there's not even that, we can define un-self as that elusive imaginary extreme of utter perfection that is our exact inverse, that an infinity of souls come so close to, and sort of reach collectively, though none exactly hits the target. Then when we say "my unself is..." we can say we're implying "all the souls sustaining me pretty much are..." We decided we might use "un-selves" for a set of inverses which each support us for only one moment, but now we must use "un-selves" even for a single moment, so if we add time, we get even more "un-selves:" the set of all the groups who each sustain me for a moment, combined over time.

If we say I see blue for a moment, we might say say our un-self (implied: all the souls approaching this imaginary perfect inversion that does not actually exist), sees orange, or instead we might say "My un-selves see orange." Then if we add time and say I'm watching a movie, then the inverse supporting the movie is seen by a changing group of infinite souls, a bigger group than which sustain me for the single frame; "my un-self (implied: the unreachable extreme which everyone comes close to) is watching a movie," or "my un-selves (a bigger group than "my un-selves see orange") are watching a movie. Or we could define un-self as some random soul who's more or less traveling our inverse path, and not worry about the precision of things.

Also note that some of these souls might sustain me for a longer time than others. If I'm watching the movie, and some inverse soul somewhere is watching a different inverse movie, but with the same inverse I'm watching, then that soul helps sustain me for only those commercials, while some other soul might be watching almost exactly the inverse of what I'm watching, sustaining me for a longer period of time.

This has all been one theory, one proof. One may of course argue otherwise. We might consider that our example of reaching further and further out to find greater and greater perfection actually reaches its destination at the end of infinity; consider putting all souls in existence on the surface of a sphere; we have a starting point, and as we work outward adding up souls, we can only traverse an infinitesimal amount of the surface, an insignificant number of souls, so we will never reach the exact opposite point on the sphere, but we can see it does indeed exist.

Or we might consider that the assumption that the way things work around us in our world applies to all infinity, is false. We might theorize there are actually infinite lives living my exact life, that I am only unique in the chaotic realm I appear to inhabit, and hence infintie lives living my exact un-life. Not just un-self but infinite perfect un-selves, when a moment ago we had none. Even if we have just one in this counter-argument, the issue of sustenance also asks, is this one sufficient to sustain my existence by itself, for the moment it's my inverse (or forever, if it can travel my exact path), or do I still play tug with infinite other souls? (If we believe the previous argument that no inverse exists, we might still want to know for understanding's sake, that if that inverse did exist, would that be enough to sustain me? Or would I still need a bunch of other souls?)

We might challenge the assumtion that everything behaves chaotically. Perhaps there are souls traversing perfect mathematical sine waves for all eternity, requiring perfect inverse sine waves, each sustaining the other completely. Maybe the chaos and multitude of my life is an illusion, and I'm simply one of the only two souls in existence, each the others inverse, stuck in a particular state forever by chance, or perhaps flowing through all possibility, but remained linked as perfect inverses. Or this could be even if there are other souls as well: an infintie pairing. Perhaps this is just an infinite truth outside the world -- the pairing with a twin -- that there's no evidence for in the world we see around us (no pairing, no marriage, seems to last forever; there doesn't even seem to be anything that could follow the same path for a second, based on our argument of searching for such a a pair of scribbles. But maybe this just exists outside of the world around us)

So if there is some sort of mathematical perfection outside our world, this is one way our argument could be wrong. But if things do behave chaotically as they appear to, consider this line of logic as an objection: two souls traversing their random, sporadic paths. One heads downward, from a joy level of 20 to 10, and the other heads up, from 5 to 15, at roughly the same rate. They must cross at about 12.5, and there should be an exact moment of crossing, one exact point. At this point, they would occupy the exact same joy/pain value. Here we have an example of two souls sharing the exact same value.

So our argument of searching the world around us for the same irrational number and not being able to find it, seems false now. Perhaps this limited example is not equipped to handle the weight of infinity. If we were to freeze a moment and start examining the joy/pain value of random souls, one by one, we would get these random, infinite, irrational numbers. Surely we would never, ever find an exact match. Yet counting souls like this also never even makes an infinitesimal dent in the infinite souls out here. It would be like trying to count the points on a line, a stretch of infinite points. If we start counting numerically at x, we won't even traverse an infinitesimal span of all that can be traversed, and will never reach the value we're looking for, but it could exist far outside the reach of a finite search.

And if two souls can have the exact same value for a moment, surely they can have the same inverse value for a moment (exactly pi vs exactly negative pi). By this argument, perhaps indeed a perfect inverse does exist. If this is right, we must again ask: is this the only soul required to sustain our existence, since we now have a perfect opposite to sustain us. And if it didn't exist, could we still be sustained the sum of other souls in the area?

Arguments and speculation could continue. The reader should debate and try to figure out the truth of things, as one could as well debate any other possbilities of what is that we have raised; we have only examined one issue of the possibilities that nothingness may or may not generate, what may or may not be the case.


After much discussion, let us turn to a simplicity: the black and white of everything we've established, the joy and pain of things (we just as easily could have started at the beginning with this issue: asked questions about the nature of joy and pain, and then colorized by extending our black and white polarized ideas into complex reality). We'll ignore the details of the feelings like fear or nostalgia, and only be concerned with the most basic result of these feelings or mixed feelings (even with mixed feelings we can still be more happy than sad): whether we're high or low or neutral. This simplification can allow to tackle some issues without complications. For instance, if we agree on intuition that there is not infinite joy or pain, then we'll probably agree there is no infinite guilt or embarassment, no infinitely large piece of matter, etc. If we say no joy lasts forever, then probably no feeilng or form or idea lasts forever either.

As for joy and pain, how much time does one spend in each? Can one be permanetly in joy for all eternity, requiring someone to be in infinite pain for all eternity? (unless of course the permanent immortal infinite joy is sustained by different souls taking turns feeling a momentary, temporary infinite pain sustaining the joy, as in our argument that a single soul cannot traverse the same path as its inverse). Is there in fact any infinite pain or joy at all? Surely we can't accelerate there, or this would take forever; but could we blink there instantaneously? Or could one exist in infinite pain or joy from the dawn of eternity, not requiring that acceleration? Or is infinite joy just an absurd idea?

We should consider the quantifiability of joy and pain: can we measure our joy/pain level like we measure the temperature or our height? (If we can, we can probably also measure hatred, sickness, innocence, fear). If we can measure them, is it an infinite scale? Maybe we can label any joy or pain with the number one, designate it as a distance of one from the neutral line, allowing any multiple to be possible, a trillion times that joy or pain, or a google, that reached state itself then being able to be designated a measurement of one unit above neutral. If all states are occupied, then surely every level of joy and pain is occupied. Or if limited states, then only some levels.

When are we neutral? We are tempted to say that we're feeling neutral or blah at times for a period, but we should surely consider that perhaps we're just not high or low enough to notice the value. Zero on an x- or y-axis is a single point, so it makes sense we're only neutral for only an infinitesimal moment whenever we cross from joy to pain or back. Or could we stop on neutral like a car would decelerate, then accelerate up or down again? If we're in pain and follow a sort of parabola, an arc, towards joy, could we possibly peak exactly at neutral? Perhaps there's a perfect mathematical sine wave peaking always at neutral, or perhaps there is no such perfection in life. Could we blink instantaneously to neutral if blinking is possible?

If being neutral is indeed an infinitesimal moment, then who is neutral now? Is it such a tiny thing that often no one is at zero, and sometimes one or many people are? Could there be neutral traffic: sometimes no one, sometimes one or two, sometimes thousands, sometimes infinite? If there are a limited, countable number of souls in existence, how does pain and joy and neutrality fit in? If there are three souls sustaining eachother (whether that's all there is, ever, or whether it's just a subset of a bigger picture, or whether there just happens to be three souls in all of existence just for a limited duration), perhaps one must be neutral, one high, and one low. Maybe the one neutral remains forever. Maybe they blink instantaneously to random values, keeping a certain balance: if two are a little up, the other must be way down. Or could they all be neutral. If things shift and flow, perhaps the up and the down could cross where the permanent neutral soul is, while the up and down switch instantaneously to down and up.

If there are infinite souls in existence, a strong possibility is that only one soul is neutral at any and every given instantaneous moment. Always one; never none, never two, never many. Consider that along the y-axis of joy/pain, we have a vertical line of infinite values, on which zero is just a single infinitesimal point. This seems to correlate with the infinity of souls in existence we have, where a single soul is just a point in this infinite line or sea of souls. With this parallel, we might conclude that all the values on the line are occupied; every high, every low, only one soul per value, because we're distributing infinite souls over an infinte spectrum, in an infnite auditorium of exactly enough seats, with one infinitely special chair, only room for one person in all of infinity to be exactly neutral at any given moment.

We might support this with the following argument. That if I have an infinitely sided die, I have an infinitesimal chance of getting the one special number. But I have infinite rolls, so if everyone in infinity rolls the die, perhaps one and only one will win, and this lottery occurs every single moment, always someone different occupying the special seat, until, an infinite serious of moments later (a nanosecond is still an infintie series of moments), we occupy the seat again, the next time we cross from high to low or low to high.

If this is correct, a problem arises. If there is only one soul neutral at a time, then what is the perfect inverse supporting it, since we only exist because of perfect inversions? Shouldn't that be neutral too? Note that neutral is not the same as feeling total nothing. If we were nothingness, we wouldn't need an inverse to exist, since existence is created only when nothing tears apart; only when we deviate from nothing do we require a soul or souls to sustain our additive existence and feel our opposite. I can still have a body and be in a room and feel emotionally neutral, still requiring an un-body and un-room to support me. So if I'm neutral (not nothing), don't I need an inverse? We might conclude now that our guess about all souls filling up the auditorium of possible values was incorrect. Perhaps there are, then, at least two souls neutral. And if two, why not more? We might guess that there are in fact infinite souls neutral, but still an infinitesimal spec of infinity, a line of souls on a whole plane of souls, or a plane amongst a space of souls.

But let us return to our picture we drew of a universe in which we cannot ever find exact duplicates. If this is right, and I am 0.0, then I could never find another soul who is also exactly 0.0, hence we'd go back to the premise that I'm the only soul ever neutral for the moment I'm neutral. The problem we just faced of how we can be the only neutral soul when life requires some perfect oppossite is now solved, the way we solved the problem of how we can exist at all if there is not a total perfect inverse of us: the inverse is the sum of all the values that come closer and closer to the extreme, in this case, the closest values to zero. The inverse is not feeling 0.483..., nor 0.0093..., but the soul at zero is sustained by the infinite handful of souls closer and closer to zero. And our issue of how the soul can be perfectly neutral -- let's say neutrally looking at a yellow square -- without any neutral soul looking at the purple square -- is answered by the soul somehow pulling that feeling out of the combination of all the near-neutral souls that sustain it.

But then our refuting of the never-find-duplicates argument might apply. If two souls can be at the exact same value, then it's likely more than one soul can be neutral at a time. And if there are two, then perhaps there are even an infinite handful. This handful would be like the relationship between a point on a line. Consider an infinite scribble of souls flowing through existence. The black and white of their existence: how high or low they are, are demonstrated by an x/y graph. A soul is only occasionally going to hit neutral (whenever it crosses from high to low or low to high), but there are so many souls that in fact infinite souls hit that same point at that time. But infinitely more souls are hitting the points on every single value of the y axis. Infinite at 3, 4, pi, at any exact irrational number, every digit in the value's infinite set of digits perfectly matched.

To better see this, consider a 3D graph. x-axis of time, neutral being a horizontal plane 1/2 way below the graphs infinite sky and 1/2 way above its ground, y of joy/pain (vertical), and z-axis of some attribute that distinguishes many souls from others. At time t0 on the x-axis, we have a whole plane of all souls, existing in one infinitesimal moment compared to the unlimited space of all souls at all moments. The souls at any given joy/pain value are lined up on a horizontal line on a on the plane at the value on the y-axis, including the line at zero (half crossing from high to low, half from low to high), showing the infinitesimal ratio of all souls to the tiny handful of souls at neutral, or pi happy (high apple pi in the sky?) , etc, a single point on the line being a single soul, itself infinitesimal in the arena of all souls at its joy/pain value. [future diagram]


We've now explored a large metaphysical set of what the universe might be, debating a few issues in detail, keeping in mind only one of them is the way things actually are. Most of this has been theory that has rarely applied mundanely to the world around us, but very well could be. We have founded our investigation of what is on a system that can re-create other standing issues and sciences and fields, by itself. For instance, our system has already given a clear explanation of why suffering exists, why there is something and not nothing, how reincarnation (using metaphysical theory instead of religion) and evolution (using theory instead of evidence) might be possible, without needing any support from the existing theories.

We've begun to form a theory of metaphysical God, that we will discuss in detail in our section on sustained philosophy of religion: God might be defined as a being who could consciously break apart nothing into whatever forms he chooses, based on our only rule, or could create anything at all if we even discard our basic rule. Or, we might look at nothingness itself as a god, since it generates all there is in the way a god might create all there is. We're already starting to attack issues of free will vs predestination: Is my path through what could have remained nothingness determined by Being (noun), or based on choice? What is the nature of the soul vs the body and mind? How does our system, as we work out and explore the details, form other fields?

We have brought into view the skeleton of the universe, which we can proceed to put flesh and blood on, the body of existence. We have examined the foundation of a skyscraper, got its blueprints. We have reverse engineered a computer, and can build our own on our fundamental knowledge of silicon. Einstein said he wanted to know the mind of god, that the rest were details. He tried to unify physics, deduce everything from a basic principle. We in a sense have tried to do both, knowing god's creation -- nothingness's creation -- of all that is based on the infinite simplicity -- generating infinite complexity -- of the tearing apart of zero, the foundation unifying a vast endless fractal of life. And we can apply this theme to practical matters.