Fred-Rick
2 min readNov 11, 2021

--

A fantastic read, Tim, you outshine your usual brilliance. Still, I want a better answer. As long as we make a certain reality the overall reality, then Gödel already pointed out it is not going to be correct in all its aspects.

Ideas compete at the overall level, simple as that. Science competes with religion competes with philosophy competes with the various versions in between because each tries to be 1 while the real top level is 0.

We can very easily fill in the 0 spot, just like you describe de-localization. And to be alive, we are filling in that 0 spot with our own 1. But they will always be 1s taking in the 0 spot. They will never be the 1 of everything. And they will always compete with the other 1s at that 0 level.

As long as we recognize that each 1 we pick is ultimately going to falter (just like Gödel said) remaining king, then we are going to get the big picture, too. The universe is a collective term; it is not the same as 1. But… our brain can think it is 1.

Next to Gödel, I also provide evidence that the largest level is 0, but definitively not the only level of our universe. Space is our 0 level of the universe.

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/discovering-zero-among-the-prime-numbers-65a47cbf79ec

The overall outcome of our universe is a wonderful combination of 1 with 0.

And we can even describe that scientifically.

If we take energy, then the total amount of Energy can be described as 1. Simple as that.

Even when we do not know exactly what existed prior, we can still say that the energy from which matter derived totaled to that same 1. Even with quantum fluctuation as the explanation, the total of energy is 1.

1 + x = 1

This x represents the known reality that the prior total transformed to the current total.

That means the x is nothing less than that 0.

But it is not the 0 of nothing much. Rather, it is the fundamental zero of fundamental separation.

The prior 1 is no longer whole, and when we move to the smallest levels, then we are definitively not finding that 1.

Good artcile, Tim. You're shining.

--

--

Fred-Rick
Fred-Rick

No responses yet