Nonexistence+Theory

“Does nothing exist?”
Why nothing exists – the only thing we can be sure of is our nonexistence. Since our bodies are flawed, and the senses manipulated by some intellect, shall we say Descartes’ demon, we can only begin to assume that we trust our minds to perceive “reality” and that we therefore exist. Yet, the mind is a physical arrangement of atoms, a special configuration that allows us to think and experience what we call reality. In that way, the mind is like the body-easily manipulated by information which can be made to act in certain manners, just like the body. Our minds are then susceptible to the influence of the aforementioned demon, which implies that we can never know whether or not we are right or wrong about anything. How then, do we propose, may we know if we are ever “free”, in the mental sense? We are slaves to perceptions, to time [if that means anything], and what we think is ours to believe and know and think may be pre-ordained by some intellect, presumably the demon. We can be led to believe our freedom to be true, when it is not. We believe we are masters of our universe, that we can “understand” things. We think we are the animal s of a higher order than the rest, yet are ourselves at the mercy of the demon. This leads to the idea that anything, everything that we experience may in fact be unreal, fabrications of our feeble intellects and thus the consequences of the demon’s. Nothing matters, and no thing matters, all an empty “existence” [sounds contradictory, given that we have established there is no “existence”, and yet we do have an arbitrary existence, more on this later]. Why does this seem to be true? Because if we consider anything to be real, then they must withstand the test of time, as the length of time approaches an infinite length, an endless interval. Anything in this span of “time” is created, decays and is ultimately destroyed. Nothing can last forever, which is proposed by the laws of thermodynamics. In order for something to last even an unimaginable duration, it would have to be in an extremely stable state, perhaps impossibly so. This means that it would have to have a kinetic energy of zero, all energies zero, a temperature of absolute zero. As far as we know, absolute zero is practically impossible, and it follows that time would have to be at a standstill in order for something to be completely inert, without anything changing. This seems to violate the concept of time, as time is something we do not really comprehend, cannot predict whether it could ever reverse direction or stop, in the sense of a time arrow, entropy. Assuming we can reason out anything at all, regardless of the demon’s manipulations, we shall hold these thoughts as those with meaning. Time, if it is more than a manmade construct, may not even be infinite in and of itself, if that can be rationalized. Any effort to change the system cannot be permanent, as the system is one of change, and something that does not change violates the system, and breaks down attempts to change this. You may ask, “Well, doesn’t this violate the system anyway? Any such attempt to prevent a change to the established system is itself contradicting the law of change.” Maybe, but we have to consider that overall, the system has to be changing. It may instantaneously change to a state of nothing, but at the next instant moment it has to change in order not to break down by its own laws of change. That would be the only feasible way of taking advantage of the system’s virtual loopholes, without violating anything else. Change is integral to the “existence” of anything, at least to the system in which existence is real. Eventually, whatever existed in a certain x interval of time will be written over, as time continues. In this way, the sum of whatever happened is zero, as it happened, and it unhappened, which would look like nothing happened in the first place from the perspective of an observer with a large enough amount of time on his hands. The only rational method syncscribing such a happening would be to syncfine it in a given interval, such that its occurrence is not negated by its unocurrence. In effect, an infinitesimal length of time in which this thing happens, something even smaller than a Planck Length. In considering all of this, most notably infinity, which is an abstract concept, [assuming we can possibly consider such a thing] this more or less proves that existence is fleeting, such that it can be considered meaningless, nonexistent. We can also conclude that nothing matters, or more appropriately, nothing does not matter, as nothing exists because we, as humans, are trying to associate meanings to things that may ultimately be nonreal, with what we call reality. Limited beings trying to prove that their little associations and attaching values to intangible things in order to try to reason out something that probably cannot be reasoned by us. There is no inherent value to everything; we can only “attach” these arbitrary, relative values to things in order for things to make “sense” to us, in order to further the purpose of evolution and life. Our instantaneous realizations are empty, subject to the whims of the demon. Even if we continue to evolve, we can never go past our limits, so in effect we are doomed to fail to grasp what cannot be grasped by us, confined by our own mentalities. Trapped to the least of dimensions, the intangible and the tangible. It is, and is not, since we can never comprehend the whole of our reality, if it is possible for our minds to fathom, if these “truths” still retain meaning, true substance. If some intellects of a higher order were not subject to the musings of the demon, perhaps they could truly be existent, or shall we say, superexistent, and rationalize what we cannot, if we are allowed to make any guesses as to what something of a higher dimension would “do” in respect to their existence. Can we even begin to understand the implications, given that we cannot understand anything about ourselves, if we do not exist? With each new line of thought, the mysteries only deepen, our knowledge consumed by the knowing of our nonexistence and inability to understand. This essay attempts to explore the realm of the surreal, the inescapable and yet so real, exposing hidden “realities”, creating states of contradictions. It is not even complete without the relation to Waffle, the waffle that is inextricably tied to everything else related to what us humans “understand” as reality. Of course, this demon we speak of is a fabrication of ours, something we came up with to support our little thought-experiment, to try to understand reality and the way we try to understand things and all that it may imply. Yet, as we delve deeper into things, we find that this demon may be more real than anything else, as it seems to be the one thing that is central to any notion we try to conceive pertaining to existence and meaning. Now, this brings up a very interesting scenario-that the demon is merely a product of our own consternation, fallible, then that means that the demon does not exist. This is why waffle is thrown in the mix- an observer could say, “Well, then your hypothesis has no value as it slays the demon by its own system, and yet that only strengthens the system, assuming we are using the best approach for Syncfining nonexistence”. This states that if the demon doesn’t exist [at least in the way we can “understand”], then the hypothesis is wrong, and then the system collapses. But-there is one thing we absolutely [relative in this context, in respect to waffle] have to consider, how our perspective is limited, and that we cannot possibly understand everything, let alone any one thing. If we hold this to be true, then it follows such that the demon is allowed to live, and thus keeping order and disorder maintained in the system. Rationality is conserved, at least for one instantaneous moment. By saying that we “understand” that the demon does not exist is a contradictory statement, so then the demon must “exist”. But that apparently violates the proposal that nothing exists, due to the hypothesis that we are always at the mercy of the demon. It is because we cannot comprehend everything that brings up the existence paradox, and its derivatives. We may be sure that we are unsure, which contradicts itself. If we are to be unsure, then how can we be sure of even unsureness? This supports the nonexistence notion, since it validates our understanding of not understanding, and yet destroys the understanding of everything along with it [including nothing, our attempts hold no water over that which is an eternal sea of the irrational]. This begs for forgiveness of the demon, to our simple logic, which is: How can we know if we are right, knowing that there is always the possibility that we are wrong, about everything, nothing? There seems to be no straightforward answer to this conundrum, if there is one at all to begin with. However we phrase it brings up a lot of waffle, and affects an number of other things, more as we try to answer any specific dilemma brought up by the original. Even if we try to rid ourselves of the waffle, we still have to deal with the nothing, the observed “truths”, that we may be dealing with a problem only the demon itself may be privy the knowledge to opening the lock of existence, if that means anything. The more we try to answer, the less certain we are except that of are uncertainty, some truths rendered naught but ash, other reinforced, more realized and negated. It keeps reinforcing the reality of that which questions reality itself, the original enigma. More questions are raised, and more connections between idea-chains grow at an exponential rate. The more logic loops that are created, and dissolve our notion of rationality and thus existence. Something comes up, an is then invalidated, yet still validating the original question which invalidates all. These loops don’t actually cancel each other, as we hold each to have it sown “truths”, and thus they can only compound each other. Ultimately, all we may ever hope to achieve, if anything, is to approximate what we deem as truths and realities in respect to what we perceive-perhaps not real or certain, but enough that we have an idea of what may never be understood, something that as humans we have already done, live with day to day. We may know that we may never be able to prove anything, as it has to do with the original problem, that which validates and invalidates existence in terms of whatever is pertinent to the situation, and yet universal, all having to do with waffle. Reality is very, very grey indeed, blurred between our thoughts and what may be. We try to syncfine the latter, and yet acknowledge it does not matter, exist. Considering our limitations, perhaps we are doing much ado about nothing, but there may still be purpose to it, so long as we wish to remain human. Perhaps this is the wrong methodology by its own nature, unnecessary, futile. Or perhaps it is wrong because it tries to involve everything that we have ideas of, and the resultant mess is something humanity cannot comprehend by its own set of rules. A system that cannot be rationalized by its creators, or rather, by its realizers. These loops of chained thoughts may be something that is itself not real, but that poses contradictions which null everything and yet keep its existence. It appears to be related to everything we can possibly conceive, all that we think there is and will be and have been, and it is where the waffle supposition plays a pivotal role in attempting to determine anything out of everything and nothing. In an ideal universe, one where intellects are not bound by themselves, this problem would stand a greater chance for solving itself, be realized, and cease the existence of that which violates everything we think we know. Perhaps it is a limit of itself, create by its own set of logic, something we may be allowed to detect, and yet never reach. Why, may the observer ask? Not because it is made to do so, but because we are seeing a facet of a multi-faceted thing. It is not designed to have everything else fail right before our eyes, but to help us “realize” the nature of our existence and nonexistence. And so, we come back to the original query, which asks, “Does nothing exist?” And there you see why logic-loops exist in the context of the problem, still relative to the question which poses conflicting realities and dual natures. “What merry fools we are, puppets of our own design, gifted with the certainty of uncertainty”. To see the derivative of the Nonexistence Theory, go to The Freeman Uncertainty Principle