How the Brain Works ~ A Treatise by Namron Soar ~ Oh-1 Digital Press ~ Thursday October 27th 2011 ~ Chapter Fourteen ~ Nonreal Entitic Science or Non-Entitic Science (formerly NES Law) ~ ID 1350

This division of non-theory is just a bit tenuous. First off the idea of nonreality has nothing whatsoever to do with non-theory, it simply is the word that some use for a sort of imaginary state where the reality we know is not. Now the first problem is that the idea of no reality is stated as "imaginary" but then we have already shown that reality itself is also imaginary so that reveals the conundrum and that where this whole so-called Science begins it’s downfall. At this Institute we don’t like dealing with things that are not sound and provable, even if they are a tiny bit unstable at times at least the basic intent of each law or statement is very supportable but this one is anything but.

So this is our disclaimer.

NES Law can only be considered conjectural (speculative, theoretical, doubtful) Those are the thesaurus entries and the last one does not apply.

or oxymoronic (a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in "cruel kindness" or "to make haste slowly" or in this case "imagining no imagination".

Unfortunately it was called NES "Law", proved almost immediately not to be any form of ’law’, sounds so impressive that it has survived all these years (coined 2006) regardless of it’s obvious shortcomings and has had a total of four iterations and will likely have another in a few minutes. This is the first;

Unreality or Nonreality ~First Draft~ Dec 23 2006.

Unreality is the lack of existence of the lack of existence. Even the recognition of nonreality would cause existence.

If there is anything there is everything.

The impossibility factor of nonreality would have to be absolute, therefore as equally impossible as reality.

Lets Discuss the Name of this division of Science

Entitic Science Laws outlined in Chapter 13 are the fully functioning laws of the ’Entity’ as we have named it (We define it as "all of reality, past, present and future") or as the World English Dictionary states (1) Something having real or distinct existence; a thing, especially when considered as independent of other things (2) Existence or being (3) The essence or real nature (from Medieval Latin entit?s, from ?ns being; see ens). So we seem to have hot the nail on the head, so to speak, with the word Entity. We could have used a synonym such as: article, being, body, creature, existence, individual, item, material, matter, organism, presence, quantity, single, singleton, something, stuff, subsistence, substance or thing, but none seem to apply as well.

Once we add the N to ES Law there begs the question or questions; Does Nonreal apply to Entitic Science or to something else such as reality or perhaps the Laws of Reality? Since these are nothing like ’laws’ then maybe this subdivision should be called "Nonreal Considerations" or "Unreality Visited" or perhaps "Non-Entitic Science" and drop the ’Laws’ part completely. Then we could even let the division go as well and include it as an addendum to ES Law.

It does seem to apply to the Entity since it is the balancing factor to the reality enjoyed by all of reality being that if nothing existed then there would be no entity so lets go with ’Non-Entitic Science’ and drop the ’laws’ in further drafts and keep it as a separate subdivision of ES Law because Ch 13 is plenty long enough as is at 2613 words.

Moving right along with The Main Theme discussion

You will notice in the last paragraph that something worse than an oxymoron was voiced and it runs counter to the great filter; ’Pure or Base Logic’. Did you catch it? "If nothing existed" is one of those expressions that has a major problem something like "There are no absolutes" (the foregoing is an absolute statement that ostensibly forbids itself and is therefore not a statement). If nothing existed then there would be no existence so nothing would not exist. When you come right down to it, that is a statement much like trying to describe exterior space, you can put words together but in the end they don’t measure up to any kind of logic and are just nonsense semantic jibberish. That’s the main problem with trying to talk about the entity or the reality not existing, you can’t possibly make sense. This leads to another possible division or sub-division of ES Law that INTS has tried to make sense of for years and that is; ’the way words give away the secrets of real reality’ but so far I just have a few examples and they are already mentioned here. I will elaborate on one of these again.

Wording Problems with describing what we call "Exterior Space"

This is a bit of an aside but it is intended to show what difficulty there is in attempting to work out so-called Nonreality. It was mentioned previously in another chapter but lets have a more detailed look at the semantics:

(1) Space is so large that it goes on forever.

(2) Space has no edges.

(3) Outer Space is larger than we can imagine.

(4) We don’t know if there is anything beyond the stars or if there is just limitless space.

These are statements that you have heard in public and highschool and were assertions made to teach you something but if you look closely you will see that they say absolutely nothing and are not really statements. (1) attempts to overcome the obvious conceptual problem by invoking time. (2) Attempts to tell you something that you can’t visualize by mentioning something that isn’t there namely ’edges’. (3) Tells you that you can’t comprehend what it’s trying to tell you, and (4) introduces the word ’limitless’ which tells you absolutely nothing but makes you feel that you have heard a statement. So if you ever hear someone say these things again or anything similar be sure to tell them; "Exterior Space is an unsupportable and oxymoronic non-concept and only ’Interior Space’ can be described.

Similar Wording problems with Nonreality

What does the word mean? Nonreality describes or rather tries to describe the condition where nothing exists and the nasty little ’where’ word is the main bugaboo in the that short statement. How can there be a place i.e. ’where’ nothing exists when not even that would be. It’s another semantic nightmare that shows that base logic is trying to tell you something about nonreality and that is: Reality is the only condition that can be described when given the two so it is the only possibility.. thus no beginning of time! Do you get the connection? This is why we exist because ’We can’t not exist’ and that is why these cannot be considered ’laws’ as they are oxymoronic non-statements.

Lets Look at the Fourth Draft

~~~~~ Unreality or Nonreality ~~~~~Fourth Draft~ June 10, 2008.

Unreality is the lack of existence of the lack of existence. or (Nonreality is the non-existence of non-existence)

Even the recognition of nonreality would cause existence.

If anything is possible, everything would result.

The impossibility factor of nonreality would have to be absolute, not so with reality. Therefore the possibility is in favor of reality.

Nonreality could not exist. The state of non-existence could not be practiced within the non-void of non-reality.

The conditions required for reality would always exist, therefore no beginning nor end.

Reality cannot exist materially and externally because it cannot be contained and no thought process allows infinite expansion.

These are neither going to be explained nor rewritten so copy them down and take them to your next seminar on ’Reality’ and get everyone ion a tizzy trying to argue with them. The title of this chapter is going to be renamed and we will add a caveat to any previous mention of the so called NES Laws and further refer to this as a subdivision of ES Law now called "Non-Entitic Science"

Namron Soar

©