Listen to this Chapter Philosopher Pix Notes on this and other Chapters A Million Laughs and Poignant Too Plain Background Definition of Terms Used General Bibliography

~ The Thought of Non ~ ID 1908 May 22, 2008 ~ Chapter 6 ~ Oh 1 Digital Press

All literature shows that the thought of non-existence has always been at the forefront of philosophy and religion simply because it always refers to `creation’ which by default itself refers to the idea that we or existence itself was at one time not. The idea that there never was a creation or beginning is really not the norm and I can’t really say if I have read such a postulation in any of the older literature. Modern day scientists up to just recently have used the `Big Bang Theory’ to explain our beginning as a world and a universe and eventually as a people and it refers to a time that is so far back compared to the time scale of our lives that most do not consider it to be very important and also they realize that it’s just a convenient idea of how things began. There are many variations of the `BBT’ and it continually changes through our history but unfortunately it is taught in the schools as if it were fact and this is just plain wrong. In case you don’t know the theory it goes like this: A super dense point of mass underwent a cataclysmic singularity event many millions or billions of years ago resulting in a big bang or rather an expansion (as they have recently added) to create the cosmos as we know them today. Of that any inquisitive child could ask "Where did this super dense point of mass come from?" and science had no answer for that so it recently modified the entire `BBT’ to be called `The Big Bang Bounce Theory’ or `The Reciprocating Universe Theory’ which simply states that the whole idea of expansion from a point of mass is eventually followed by a collapsing of the entire universe back to this point and `Bang’ it starts all over again. Really! is this the best that they can do?

Unfortunately there are no other theories just theologies that require a god-figure to cause the original creation but both suffer from the same shortcoming. Who or what created the god or the original mass and how was the space arranged for all this to take place? Even if it is a reciprocating universe there still begs the question of the space and the matter involved. Naturally there are some serious nut case scenarios that place the responsibility of our existence here on earth with aliens or involve other dimensions that are supposed to solve the question of how humanity came to be without a place to put them or the material to make them. The eighth law of reality states that "Existence must have a balance with non-existence." and this balance cannot take place with any of the theories available but of course, a god theory involves the magic of creation and cannot even be addressed with this balance ideal. Oddly the `BBBT’ theory involves a bit of magic too in that the original super dense point undergoes unexplained, chemical or atomic changes that have no parallel within science today. The point somehow magically became an entire universe through supernatural expansion and it’s just so silly that it really isn’t even a theory. Still we teach it.

The first set of the laws of reality are positive statements designed to explain common misconceptions and have the quality of being irrefutable within the constraint of semantics. The second set called `Entitic Science’ simply describe the entity that we and our entire reality compose. The last set is called `Nonreal Entitic Science’ and actually describe conditions that could not exist and indeed disprove themselves but this oxymoronic quality cannot be escaped when discussing nonreality. `NES Law’ is designed to convey the foundation of reality as we know it by addressing it’s results. These are in the fourth draft.

*************** Nonreal Entitic Science (NES Law) - Discussion ***************

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

Unreality is the lack of existence of the lack of 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.

"Unreality is the lack of existence of the lack of existence." is the first `NES Law’ which refers to the concept or non-concept that with nothing there would be no thought of nothing or qualification of nothing and only within existence can this be proposed. To some this could be considered nothing more than a cute expression but it is designed to convey the impossible idea that without existence there would not even be a place where nothing existed. People and scientists alike tend to think of non-reality or non-existence as empty space and fail to mentally or verbally find a way of removing even that. These expressions attempt to overcome this problem by conveying the impossible thought.

"Even the recognition of nonreality would cause existence." is the second law and may be noted that many of these are very similar. This one is along the same vein as the third but is unique in that is expresses that recognition of any sort would result in reality as we know it, perhaps not as humans but then that is an entirely different subject. Cognition is the key to existence. For nonreality not to be there must be no place as well. If there were a place with nothing existing it also could not be without the recognition of it and that would mean that everything would be caused. (if it were recognized) You may have noticed that there is a major problem with semantic negatives and therefore these could not be considered as irrefutable or absolute, they are rather colloquial and point out things that are a weakness of the non-existance theory. It’s odd that existence requires a balance with something that only existence could recognize, namely non-existence.

"If anything is possible, everything would result." is the third law and means that the universe and human kind is the result of absolutely anything at all. You may find that difficult but realize that for anything at all to exist it must first be recognized by an intelligence or thinking process and any single thought would result in the entirety of real existence for this very reason. Again this does not refer to a condition or event that has occurred or would occur but is merely a mental exercise on the nonreal designed to teach and explain.

"The impossibility factor of nonreality would have to be absolute, not so with reality. Therefore the possibility is in favor of reality." is the fourth law and somehow contrives that reality is odds on, the favorite of the two conditions; nonreality and reality. Unlike the Laws of reality and entitic science these can be discussed and debated. The explanation of this one is; nonreality must be absolutely impossible because it cannot be possible in any way, but the possibility of reality does not have to be absolutely impossible, simply because it can actually be. This is difficult to grasp and seems to be a trick of semantics which it partially is due to it’s oxymoronic quality. It simply conveys the idea that there seems to be less chance of nothing than something.

"Nonreality could not exist. The state of non-existence could not be practiced in the non-void of non-reality." is the fifth law and gets right down to the nitty gritty of the same old underlying theme here that nonreality is something that is not something, and as such cannot not be or be and therefore not exist. This again leaves only one possibility and that is existence. I think these six laws or non-laws hammer home the idea and I really don’t think they will be added to.

"The conditions required for reality would always exist, therefore no beginning nor end." is the sixth and second last of these laws. It relates to the sixth of the tablet laws "Time is a concept and can have no beginning nor end." and exposes that there is no known condition necessary for thought nor any constituent identifiable of thought or cognition. Therefore a beginning would mean some kind of change as would an end and there is just no evidence of this nor any reason to consider it necessary or possible so the default condition becomes no beginning. It also refers to the absoluteness of nothing and the absoluteness of anything thus everything.

"Reality cannot exist materially and externally because it cannot be contained and no thought process allows infinite expansion." This is the most recent and may spawn a new set or additions to `the laws of reality’ but cannot be added at this time due to the fact that the tablets have not even been delivered to our universities, as yet, so it will remain here. This is very important and unique and may undergo a change in the wording at a later date. It shows why the theories of creation, evolution and big bang are incomplete and unreasonable because we are truly unable to think of a universe without edges. Oddly our thought process seems to allow this but that is due to obvious oversight. We must exist within the apparent orb of reality because we simply cannot fathom an external matter-bourn reality with no container. This is also referred to as the `Container Conundrum’. When considered carefully it condemns the existence of `matter’ from a new perspective.

This is the explanation that is carried within the Figmentalism Site: "Contemplating how or why we exist or where we came from inevitably leads to the concept of nonreality or nonexistence which is utterly impossible to imagine since one would have to first remove the stars, the planets and ourselves leaving only empty space. This seems to be possible to conceive apart from the difficulty of answering the question of just how far the space reaches and trying to imagine this condition to be infinite. Our minds cannot get around such a concept because of the `container conundrum’. Space cannot be either limited nor unlimited but when you try to imagine the very space as not existing, nor the space for the space itself, our minds go into full arrest. Yet we continue to use nonexistence as a balance for existence because it is such an obvious conceptual default. One could even argue that if nothing existed there would be no need for such a concept because that too would be gone, thus the first NES law: Unreality is the lack of existence of the lack of existence. Largely an exercise in semantics, oxymoron’s and double negatives, the main features of NES law would be that the condition of nonexistence must be respected as a balancing factor and also an overriding factor in that we must somehow exist without doing so in a truly material sense. We must be strictly ethereal. As is the case with the "Laws of Reality" and "Entitic Science" there is much overlapping and redundancy and it is fairly obvious that these things cannot be truly communicated. They are primarily written in this point form to dismiss many of the currently held views such as a beginning to life and the universe, material or matter as our founding evolution and the belief that anything is real beyond thought."

So that’s the end of all the laws. Don’t break them!

Chapter Seven       Chapter Seven Plain


General Interest Galleries

Namron Soar

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional Valid Cascading Style Sheets