Kurt Gödel proved this point already about 100 years ago. But let me thank you first for creating a reply for this article.

Gödel delivered his Completeness Theorem in 1929 in which one can have a system and enumerate all aspects of that system in a list, with that list then seen (or assumed to be seen) as complete.

Then, in 1931, Gödel provided us his Two Incompleteness Theorems. With these theorems, he showed that one cannot start from a truthful position and then walk this all the way to the top level and creating then at the top level a completed list. So, he called that out as Incompleteness, and I would call that level out as organization-free.

Translating this with a silly example, he said that the human trait of growing a mustache can be seen as a truth, and that we can have a completed list of all people (capable of) growing mustaches. Obviously, children will not be on that list, so the completed list shows at the same time that at the overall level there will not be a completed list. At the overall level, this specific truth cannot be applied to all people.

At the overall level, there are no completed lists available; they find their completion at a level below the largest of levels.

It's the same with As Above, So Below. It is not true, but many people think it is true.

If we have a weekly grocery list, then we can also have an annual list of these 52 lists. To double check how As Above, So Below is false, there are two spots where these lists do not function the same way.

If we add an item to a weekly list, then this will not change the annual list. We don't have to go to the store twice because we added an item to the weekly grocery list.

If we add an item to the annual list, however, then we have to go to the store an extra time. For instance, some years have a 53rd week. So, we can see that both lists, linked as they are, do not function the same way.

--

When I have a system of letters (the alphabet, for instance), then this is not based on the system of numbers (the decimal system, for instance). They do not share the same foundation.

These two systems also have nothing to do with emojis, yet another system based on its own grounds, in this case of cartoonish facial expressions.

This reality of full disconnection is made more obvious perhaps when starting with planet Earth, then making a big leap to the Solar System, and then making an enormous leap to the Milky Way. Then, another larger leap is not available. There is no larger material to stand on than a galaxy, nowhere in the universe. Plus, one cannot stand on the universe itself because there are no universal units. The word universe, true as it is, is a collective word and not a word based on its enumerable specifics.

The Big Bang happened just once. It was not repeated. The original state got undermined so there is now a reality that is far more complex and diverse than having a single united platform underneath it all.

We are here because we lack the single united platform.

Lastly, the omelet.

I do not need to see the egg shells to confirm that the egg was broken to create that omelet. I do not need to investigate the contents of the omelet to know (100%) that the egg broke.

The universe today is the broken version of what existed prior to the Big Bang. Obviously, one can break an egg just once. One cannot break an egg twice.

The Black Swan example has nothing to do with that which occurred just once. We can take a differently speckled egg to show how the breaking was done with the first omelet, but the first omelet itself is already evidence enough to know that the original egg broke.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the challenge you provided me.