I can tell you everything about God. This book won’t be a commentary on any holy book though; it won’t
be in the tradition of interpretation of dogmas, sagas and mysteries. It won’t be a mystic’s spiritual book
which disengages the rational analytical mind. Instead I’ll tell you everything about God in the tradition
that Einstein and philosophers belonged to. It will be an algebra-like linguistic relationship-betweensymbols (with just two visuals) analysis of what’s true.
I can tell you everything about God in the rational tradition – but before you think this will be an
atheistic refutation of God, I might aswell reveal beforehand that God & Soul are legitimate concepts
and we’ll discover their rational roots tens of thousands of years ago in this book. There is a natural
narrative i.e. logical cohesion from step to step in the anatomy/history of the brain that leads up to the
invention of God & Soul. The mind-processes/conscious abilities which result in God & Soul being
realized and thus the ideas getting an impact on the world are utilized by simple means – it is relatively
easy to just stumble upon God as an idea. This is why God & Soul date back to caveman days – they’re
one of the earliest artifacts of civilization: like the spear.
To tell you everything about God I should do semantics i.e. define what I mean by the word God. I won’t
mention dogmas other than The Golden Rule (do onto others like you’d want them to do onto you) not
rituals other than showing universal scientific symbols (like the figures in this book) – what I’ll tell you
about God will be rational/abstract/theoretical and not some pretext for following one culture’s
dogmas/rituals over the other 10 000 religions’ dogmas/rituals.
I’ll show you how to for yourself figure out what God is, instead of turn you to any particular raisingparadigm/holy book.
There are three groups of people:
1. The intellectuals who are life-long learners learning for learning’s sake; the readers who are
curious for the joy of answers and read for reading’s sake.
2. Those who see some reason to read/learn. I’ll tell you that the reason for making the arguments
in this book popular is because almost every single war/conflict in today’s world is God-related.
Knowing this book shows solidarity toward soldiers (if it’s a religious war) – teaching the idea
that this book teaches can save soldiers’ lives. There is the moral argument that “it is more
moral to drink & drive than to not save soldiers’ lives by helping make a book/idea popular”. If
made popular, this book can make ISIS desintegrate and plunge into a civil war because nothing
no longer binds them together in large a group (like “the kaliphate/the Quran/their god does).
3. Those who are not intellectuals/readers nor do they show solidarity toward everyone negatively
impacted by misinterpretations of religions.
The name of this book hints at that I’ll try to write as closely as possible to what all revalations claimed
to be: universal i.e. applicable to everyone. I’ll try to make the sequence of logic i.e. arguments i.e.
what’s akin to an equation as universal as possible, meaning it can be figured out / derived no matter
who or where one is. The implications of this is that this semi-revalation sequence-of-argument/logic is
derived from the same Source identically on every human-like-life bearing planet in this infinite
universe. This is why I call this text “The First Universal Text” preassuming the footnote that this text
marks the beginning of a new intellectual tradition which is defined by its mission: to write universally.
The idea in this book can be told in many less universal ways (which are maybe 0.001% of how the idea
is “usually” (in the infinite universe) taught), but I’ll try to aim for the 99% usuality of how the idea is
usually taught i.e. how the curriculum meta to the idea is designed. How do you design the curriculum –
when a million different curriculums are possible and result in the readers learning the same idea – to
be as universal as possible?
Instead of teaching the idea/science in a random order, can we derive from logic some starting points
for the course (making the curriculum universal)? Yes: two starting points stand out akin to that it is
logical to teach history chronologically; the two starting points for understanding God/creation/the
universe are Nothingness & “I think & I am”.
Why is Nothingness a good starting point?
Why is “I think & I am” a good starting point?
The first order of business is defining the starting points along the “Nothingness”-path & the “I think & I
am” path.
Everyone spontaneously believes that he/she exists & that he/she thinks thoughts, but a man figured
this out in the 1600s. He asked: “what in an allmighty demon would be fooling me in everything I can be
fooled at/in?” What remains? Allmighty fooler on a mission to fool completely in everything.
He figured out “I exist” because there is a self necessary for a/that self to be fooled.
As a distinct line of reasoning he figured out that “being fooled is [thinking/a thought-process]”, in other
words that thought exists as certainly as the self.
That is the starting point on the “I think & I exist”-path.
The man who figured this out in the 1600s, Descartes, didn’t do it to make a joke abour proving
scientifically the most obvious, but he knew he had discovered a globally understandable starting point
with much significance for religious conflicts. Descartes was invited to live at the queen of Sweden’s
castle because of his creative rational thinking. He also invented the coordinate system ( x & y axis) to
contribute to mathematics’ intellectual tradition. In this book we’ll reach Descartes’ coordinate-system
invention (with size on the y-axis and time on the x-axis as the size-time diagram into which every object
fits in as a coordinate) from Descartes’ “I think & BI am”-invention; the two are connected in logic but
were not historically connected/associated together until I did it (400 years after Descartes invented
both things).
How can you verify that what I said right now is true? I stated a historical claim about the nonassociatedness of two ideas (invented by one and the same thinker). Unless you’re a history-of-science
intellectual-tradition-historian you’d have a hard time verifying my claim of me deserving a prize for
adding the logic that connects “I think & I am” to mathematics’ coordinate system (and the size-time
diagram more specifically). Luckily the best university professors in sciences’ intellectual history are
available on the internet (The Great Courses.com) and they go specifically into this topic in the
“Philosophy of Mind” and “History of Science” courses – and since the best professors mention
Descartes’ two ideas in one breath but not the connection between them in a 40-lecture course, you
know that not even the best current minds know the connection i.e. I’ve invented something new
(which is the logic that binds the two ideas together). It is fascinating, though, that one man (Descartes)
invented two ideas that would be connected into a single logical sequence in which both ideas are
necessary 400 years after his death.
Descartes’ certain truth (I think & I am) is in scientific circles referred to as “cogito ergo sum”, which is
latin for:
- cognition (thinking)
- ergo = therefore
- sum = existence / I am.
I prefer to call it “I think & I am” though because it (especially the &-symbol) points out that they/there
are two distinct conclusions – the logical pathways for deriving them are slightly different from one
another.
Remember this as the word “distinction” because we’ll continue from that word when we return to this
topic.
Chapter 2
I think & I am being derived as two distinct/separate statements through two distinct logical paths is
quite abstract since some of the reasoning contains no pictures – the visual brainhalf is at some
moments during the reasoning disengaged, making those parts of reasoning abstract. We’ll encounter
much more abstract reasoning-pathways in this book, which is why it’s important to, in the beginning of
the book, do reasoning about why some abstract reasonings are so hard to grasp that it took until the
21st century (me) to discover them.
As evolved animals we are made to maximize our re-arrangement of the natural, physical world for
evolutionary benefits. We are not made to re-arrange the (non-existent; for superstitious people only)
spiritual world. Nor are we made to deal with invisible mental objects – and we’ll deal with three of
them – like glass windows. As long as we’ve had possessions we’ve had the ability to recognize if some
possession was missing – we’ve had the cognitive system for spontaneously counting/seeing zero long
before written symbols for numbers were invented. Written symbols for positive numbers were
invented before the concept zero was invented. Zero, however, is one of those words which’s
understanding shouldn’t conjure up any visuals. There can be plenty of linguistic explanation of features
associated to the concept zero and one of them is that zer is non-visual (shouldn’t conjure up
imaginations) meaning that the visuals we use for representing zero (such as the symbol 0) are just
fingers pointing to a deeper tunderlying truth (which is invisible) – don’t look at the pointer/finger; but
why does the brain have a hard time doing this? The simple answer is that we evolved to re-arrange the
visible – we had no evolutionary benefits from the invisible.
It gets quite abstract, unintuitive and for said evolutionary reasons “unusual” (and civilized) when we’ll,
later in this book, account for the explanation-based connections between three invisible (purely
linguistic) ideas/concepts.
The reason why the message of this book is unintuitive (didn’t use to be an evolutionary benefit) and
was discovered first in the 21st century has its explanation in the evolution & anatomy of the brain.
Evolution and anatomy go hand in hand like history shapes architecture and intrastructure shapes
history. It’s worthwhile looking at which evolution+anatomy-explanation, other wthan “we evolved to
deal with the visible world and thus feel awkward about the invisible”, explains our repulsion toward the
abstract/invisible eventhough our logic proves that it is true – the idea of this book is much like algebra
and we should now look at why, evolution-anatomically, require a while to get as comfortable as one
can get to the invisible ideas of this book.
We have two major modalities for remembering/understanding/explaining things: the visual (sensory)
and the linguistic (abstract). They cooperate to let the animal adapt to its environment (by, for example,
making plans based on future predictions (which themselves are based on abstract and sensory
memories)). Some things that the visual brainhalf can do the abstract can’t do and vice versa. Whichever
brainhalf most efficiently and strongly accomplishes a task is utilized to make the animal competative in
the chase for evolutionary benefits.
This cooperation and communication between the two differentrly specialized brainhalves is a
function/mutation which arose because it gave evolutionary benefits. The genes that gave rise to this
brainhalves-cooperating-function – which is based on either brainhalf specializing in either the visible or
the invisible/abstract field of cognition – built on the earlier mutation/evolutionary benefit/trait of
having a flexible (during the lifetime changing) part of the brain known as cortex.
The cortex first arose to “adapt the brain to the body” meaning that if the body mutated/got a birth
defect/got injured/muscles got tired or weak, then still the animal could function to maximize
evolutionary benefits despite its new bodily circumstances. The brain adapting to the body, in case let’s
say an injury to the body, gave the organism a Super Mario-like extra life/extra chance – for example a
bird with a 50% weaker left wing than right wing could, because of the flexible cortex,
know/learn/acknowledge its disposition and adapt tits behavior/muscular movements to counteract the
disadvantages that would’ve came about if the animal didn’t have a cortex. For example a bird meant to
fly straight (seeing a butterfly in front of it) with a 50% weaker left wing would’ve sent the same
muscular-activation-signal to both wings, but due to the weakness of the left wing the bird would’ve
been flying counter-clockwise circles/faulty steering. With a small part of the bird’s brain that’s flexible
i.e. able to learn, the saying “a cat has nine lives” became more real. This is a major benefit from the
rather small mutation of having a flexible middle-man in the feedback loop from and to the muscle.
Parrots obviously have a flexible part of the brain since they can learn to mimic sounds, dating back the
first cortex to sometime around when birds had become complex enough to mutate just a few cortical
neurons in the right place. The virtue of the very nature/anatomy of cortical neurons is that even a
couple of neurons can be wired so that they 1) sense 100% activation of both wings intended by the
brain, 2) sense feedback from the wings telling that the left wing only flexed with 50% of its strength,
and 3) either inhibit the right wing’s activation by 50% or increase the muscular excitement to the left
wing so that it reaches 150% - in either case the feedback loop with the flexible middleman makes both
wings flap equally (if the bird wants to fly straight) even if one wing is injured/mutated/weak.
That is the origin/dawn/beginning of the cortex and dates it back to about 100 million years ago.
Building, through mutation, on that earliest cortex simpy enlargening the cortex would’ve allowed the
cortical cells to exhibit new benefitial traits. Remembering that adapting (the brain) not only to one’s
body but to the external environment too is, like cats do, building a simple mental map of the objects in
one’s environment and learning from experience what can and can’t be done with them.
It’s quite straight-forward that a larger cortex – tin the animals whom need cognitive adaptiation to the
environment to reap maximum evolutionary benefits – is better.
Along the story of humanity we formed hierarchical groups (king, aristocrats and slaves) and at about
the same time possessions (and thus the first encounter with an abstract invisible: “my thing is
missing!”) became a part of the human story.
Speaking of possessions – specifically the ownership of intellectual property – the courses I’ve seen on
anthropology, archeology and Big History all fail to mention that the capitalist drive of the biggest
cortexed proto-human smarting his or her way to the top of (or upward in the) hierarchy led to
evolutionary pressures growing the cortex. The cortex with the most mass compared to its rival cortexes
had 1) faster planning, 2) more memory and 3) more detailed social (personality) and environmental
maps. Power-hungriness – the ambition to climb upward in the hierarchy – let to the cortex growing
generation after generation. Among many reasons, other than that the king orders his
protectors/servants, is that females are attracted to the king because he commands the most resouces
(especiallyu food-supply (which is necessary for maximizing any female’s number of offspring)). The
most modern/civilized analogy/equivalent to a large food-supply is possession of ownership of
intellectual property – in this case the fact that one of the world’s best archelogists/proto-human
experts said that it is an explicit eunexplained mystery/question of science why the brain/cortex grew so
very much during the latest era of burst-like brain-growth (the past 100 000 years). I like I said, claim
that it was hierarchical upward mobility (and the king having the most babies) due to faster-, more
accurate-, based on more memorized foundation- and predicting further into the future-planning
(cortical abilities which correlated to the size of the cortex and which are more likely to elevate one,
instead of lower one’s status, in the hierarchy). My claim that hierarchies made the cortex grow is
intellectual property of my ownership.
The reasons for growth of the cortex illuminate what hkinds of thinking the brain dealt with and is made
to deal with. There’s even negative incentives to think about the invisible (like zero): we base our
reasoning off of and on our planning ability. In our plans we use the mediating concept “then” alot, just
like we do in algebra (1+1=2 is much like 1+1 then 2) & argument. In arguments you set up premises that
lead to (“then”) conclusions which in turn (“then”) become premises.
In evolution (and thus in the anatomy of our brains) sometimes plans had or resulted in a “???”-step; if
some premise/step/conclusion in a plan was empty, this was our “symbol” (null) for considering the plan
impossible, unfinished or not worthwhile committing as action.
Since reasoning about universal curriculum starting points like “I think & I am” and all the arguments
between the start and fully explaining God/creation/the universe as 21st century science involves
legitimate but invisible arguments (like zero), this book can feel like a plan in which one step was
null/empty – and thus, despite verbal logic’s disagreement, the theory of brain-evolution predicts that
the logic will feel like a plan gone wrong (or which is unfinished/faulty). The impossibility of making the
steps of argument/logic in this book visual – and explicitly claiming that we’ll deal with three distinct but
invisible (and thus looking the same & making the “plan” (upon which reasoning is based) feel faulty).
What speaks against the feeling of “fault in the plan/reasoning”, though, are that:
-
-
the logic, eventhough triggering the feeling of “this is faulty/unfinished” by speaking of any of
the invisible concepts, makes sense by being thorough logic, like solving equations, beginning
from the premise/conclusion of Descartes’ certain truth.
It is possible to know the message of this book (including the three interconnected invisible
ideas) without knowing or having chosen a specific curriculum for teaching the idaeas. The fact
that many people can formulate the same ideas and logic between novel associations in
practically infinitely many ways, and still be agreed upon and comprehendable by peers shows
the disconnect between the (more or less universal) curriculum and the (unchanging) underlying
idea. The idea is the scientific world-view and there are unlimited ways to communicate/teach
it. This scientific world-view is a new version, including a full explanation of God, of something
that has been developing as a continuation of the history of (the curious, map-making) cortex.
Because argument/reasoning/logic is based on and is planted in planning (re-arraning real-world
objects), truth/validity is based on the visualizable (“if you see it (happening in the future or further on
in logic) you’ll believe it”) and we’ll be listing the facts about three unseeable objects, and worldviews/diagrams which explain the universe/a coordinate-system-based existential theory is based on
cognitive maps of the geographical and social environment, we’re using old cognitive abilities basically
used for surviving on the savannah to do abstract 21st century science. This is why 21st century science
feels awkward/unintuitive/faulty etc eventhough the logic can be put on paper like the solution of an
equation, each step be verified, no faults found and thus one can feel the uniquely modern
discongruity/mismatch between what one can 100% certainly know to be true, and the emotion which
comes from the mismatch between, for example, an abstract diagram-based map of Reality and the
cognitive million year old simple map-making-ability in which the 21st century abstract “map”/diagram is
rooted. We’re using old abilities/mechanisms to do new things, overcoming rules like “if you can’t see
one step (but “only” know it linguistically) the plan/reasoning is lacking” – we can use the number zero
but thinking about its meaning in “101” (no tens) gives an awkward feeling of “something went wrong”
(eventhough civilizing/reasoning/understaning/logic can subdue the awkward “something-went-wrongbecause-I-can’t-see-it”-feeling. Likewise I will state “you can’t see X because...” at least three times in
this book, explicitly claiming that that logic at that point will feel unintuitive (eventhough it can be put
on paper and make sense) unless the feeling is subdued by civilizing. The evolved traits like “can’t see it
= it doesn’t make sense yet = give it up” are why no-one discovered the message of this book until the
21st century. Our frontier-pushing reasoning is like a plant planted in a foundation (evolved cognitive
traits like “can’t see it = don’t believe it”) which is not very fertile for plants; if we are a plant, our roots
have hit some poisons in the dirt. For 21st century reasoning, our brain as in obstacle course. We have
some genetically-based cognitive hinderances for our universal reasoning.
Chapter 3
If we call the path that begins with “I think & I am” “path A”, since we have two equally legitimate
starting points to the curriculum that explains God, we can call the other path/starting point “path B”.
Definitions: all the following are synonyms: Nothing, spacetime, 0, zero, emptiness, non-existence, the
void...
It’s legitimate to ask “what preceded [nothing]?” because we are in a non-empty universe which is
becoming emptier by the moment (this is a well-known fact among cosmologists & the accelerating
expansion/emptying is called “dark energy”). It is not legitimate, however, to ask the other “why?”question about Nothingness: even though Nothingness has a chronological cause (because our universe
will become nothing again), it doesn’t have a cause-and-effect relationship other than the chronological
one, making the question: “why was there nothingness (and don’t give the chronological answer!)?”
illegitimate. Nothingness is a starting point in reasoning - it warrants no prior justification; as Kant
would’ve said: it is the precondition in which everything happens: it is “a-priori” meaning none were
prior to it in a meaningful cause-and-effect relationship because nothingness doesn’t exist. What
doesn’t exist denies the question: “why does it exist?” – it doesn’t! This makes Nothingness a valid
starting point, path B, in a universal curriculum. Nothingness and “I think & I am” are equally good
starting points. Asking “what is true about nothing?” or ”what is true in nothing?” is the starting point
along path B of this universal curriculum.
One thing I usually say about nothingness is that it is emptier than we can imagine it as. Whatever your
mind can produce, it’s still the mind producing it – we can’t escape the mind’s perspective i.e. its
biological nature of everything it does (even when saying “nothing”) being neurons. Real nothingness is
emptier than even our concept of nothingness.
The first order of business regarding this starting point was defining it, finding out why it’s universally
considered a curriculum’s starting point and asking the most fundamental question about it: “what is
true about/in it?”. The sentence “having nothingness...” doesn’t make intuitive sense because “having”
implies you have something of existence, but having non-existence as our starting-point and having
asked a question about it, knowing that we asked a question about it, is where we’ll continue when we
get back to path B – but first we’ll examine path A further: we have thinker, thought and distinction (we
listed two things, not one, and by doing so we’ve listed three things and thus can count three distinct
things including distinction itself).
Path C
Reality, by definition, is “that of which all is part”. A single word/concept of which all is part is the exact
opposite of distinctiveness. We concluded that “certainly distinction exists” and we did so in a Reality of
which all is part. We are playing around with both opposites: plurality (distinction) and
singularity/monotheism (anti-distinction). That Reality is one, could’ve been one starting point all by
itself. If we would’ve started with Reality – the most all-encompassing – then it would’ve led us to
conclude path A (that we think & exist) and it could’ve led us to ask a question about nothingness. If we
would’ve taken “Reality is one” as a starting point, it would’ve opposed the starting point “there is
distinction”. Usually our logic tells us that where there is opposition, there is fault in our reasoning – but
this is obviously not true for considering the opposition between Reality (anti-distinction) and
distinction. Both are legitimate words. The conclusion from pondering them – the elongation of path A –
is that the opposition is a reason for why Reality can’t be, as thinkers & thoughts do, conceived. We
never see reality as one – if we did then Descartes’ distinction between observer and object wouldn’t be
true anymore. Reality can’t be seen/represented/observed/thought of fully/what-have-you because of
the opposition between the starting points Reality is one and I think & I am (distinction vs. antidistinction). It is thus not a statement about the Platonic cave-metaphor where our maps don’t
correspond with (i.e. maps are distinct from) the territory; this is a statement about the “access denied”
given to all distinct observers (and all observers are by Descartes’ definition distinct) to Reality – it’s a
fundamental opposition (between distinction and anti-distinction, us and Reality) which makes Reality
not even represented if there were no limits to representation (because the very act of representing is
distinctioning). Regardeless of whether there are brains/computers to represent things (which, factually,
there must be because as brains we define what represents what), but even if representation could be,
in a thought experiment, presumed to happen without us or computers - then still that representation
couldn’t represent That of which all is part. This is a very subtle point which differentiates my way of not
seeing Reality from Plato’s way of not seeing Reality – I put emphasis on the opposition between
distinction and anti-distinction, Plato noted that mental maps are not physical territories. Both ways of
not seeing Reality are true and legitimate, but my way means more: it means that regardless of brains
ever existing and “representation” being as loosely/vaguely defined by the universe as it can be in the
universe, the distinction-anti-distinction-opposition still makes Reality infinitely much more than there
can ever be to it. Let’s say that the part there is to it now represents “all of Reality” – then distinctionanti-distinction-opposition holds true and thus we get that there is more to Reality even than whatever
was represented, no matter how it was represented. So even if we say that however much there is to
Reality may represent itself (Reality), then still the opposition between thinker & thought’s distinction
holds true and causes an opposition with the also true oneness of reality (anti-distinction).
21st century science is supposed to be subtle. The conclusion, however, from all of this is that there is
more to Reality than any representation (regardless of brains) can represent i.e. Reality is infinite.
Exactly in which ways (size and time, energymass & spacetime) Reality is infinite we’ll consider in the
continuation of this path A. Though this seems like a lot of mental effort reading (the reason why it’s
new is because it’s hard) but it is all necessary to lead up to an existential theory which includes all
possible knowledge about God, and thus this book will have geopolitical impacts on conflicts. Usually
Nobel prizes are awarded for finding something new about some size in the (thank’s to me) proven-tobe infinite Reality – what about being the first one to prove that Reality in fact has infinitely much to it?
Path A (thinker & thought) and path C (Reality is 1 i.e. antidistinction) both lead us to conclude that
there´s infinitely much to Reality because of the distinction-antidistinction-opposition.
It´s worthwhile pausing on a sentence like that like it was programming source-code because it contains
unseeable concepts (distinction, antidistinction, their opposition) and the infinity of Reality.
If we confine on path B (nothingness) and the fact that we can ask questions about it, let´s ask:
- which laws of nature are inherent in nothingness? Which unavoidable truths are true because of the
rational framework of nothingness? Which equations couldn´t not be true?
0=0 i.e. nothingness is itself should be true. Zero does not equal five nor does five equal two. We´ve thus
found that mathematics is inherent to nothing i.e. in empty space a triangle is not a sphere and all other
geometric truths hold true.
E=mc2 is one of those true equations – Einstein´s most famous equation. All I need to know about this
equation are the meaning of the five words: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.
“The speed of light squared” is a reference to spacetime because speed is distance (space) over time.
This, in the equation mentioned spacetime, is connected to “energy equals mass” through the
multiplication sign. “Energy equals mass” warrants the word “energymass” as a synonym for
Existence/the universe/”all movement, shining etc. (verbs) and the things that move, shine (nouns)”.
There are so many different explanation-traditions for E=mc2. Usually the practical real-world
application-tradition overlaps with the mathematical tradition – theoretical physicists cooperate with
experimental physicists. All I know about those explanatory views/intellectual traditions is that space
(three dimensions) and time obviously are connected, warranting the word spacetime. But I also know
that mass is made into energy in nuclear power plants and energy is made into mass in particle
accelerators – these technologies prove that all energy equals mass and vice versa, warranting the word
energymass. Energymass feels a lot like spacetime and is found in the same E=mc2-equation as
spacetime. Energymass can be symbolized as ∞ - infinite existence while spacetime and 0 are synonyms.
Energymass (existence, ∞) and spacetime (zero, nothing) (and equations) is all there is to the
universe/Reality. All the fundamental parts – the empty framework with its laws of nature and
energymass –are in the same E=mc2 equation. There´s nothing more to the cosmos than energymass &
spacetime together (along with equations) and all of those parts are represented in one equation.
Since E=mc2 is true in nothingness (like 0=0 is), we´ve reached “mentioning existence (starting point C)”
from starting point B (nothing).
E=mc2 being true at the very core of nothingness (like 0=0 is) tethers energymass (existence) to the very
core of the framework. Existence is thus necessary if there is nothing (path B summons path C).
Existence (energymass) and non-existence are the core components of our Reality. They are connected
and mutually interdependent as is shown in E=mc2. They are the space between and “behind/in” objects
and the objects themselves, and all rules governing them – there´s nothing more necessary for a full
explanation of energymasspacetime/Reality.
The more detailed description, coming from path A´s infinity of Reality, is that there is infinitely much
energymasspacetime: the framework is infinite (spacetime is infinite) and what fills it is infinite
(energymass/existence is).
The three paths have merged: path A (I think & I am, distinction) led to path C (there´s more to Reality
than can be represented due to distinction-antidistinction-opposition) and path B led to defining Reality
as energymasspacetime and making existence tethered to nothingness.
In the above sentence we have the seeds to:
- the chronological explanation with its infinite time-line, our universe acceleratingly emptying
(observed fact) and nothingness having (laws of nature like E=mc2) existence (∞) tethered to it.
-
The “why existence?”-question – existence exists tethered to non-existence and only under
those circumstances does it make sense for existence to exist.
Defining Reality as energymasspacetime (with the footnote from path A: that it is infinite (sizewise and time-wise)) and since it´s one and unseeable (due to distinction-antidistinction
opposition) calling it God or monotheism. If you do not worship the grandest (that of which all is
part) then I don´t know what you are worshipping.
We don´t need any other concepts than those we´ve gotten from the universal starting points:
-
Infinity of Reality (infinitely small, infinitely large and infinitely much time)
Reality defined as energymasspacetime i.e. we exist in nothing and therefore it makes sense for
us to exist; infinite nothingness and infinite creation.
The monotheistic nature of Reality: distinction (us)-antidistinction (it) being opposites, making it
(Reality) inaccessible for representation (for the thinker & thought-realm) i.e. there´s more to
Reality than any representation can validly claim to represent.
An infinite size-range & time-range (infinite spacetime as Reality is energymasspacetime and infinite) of
E=mc2´s existence-nonexistence-duality (energymasspacetime) and distinction-antidistinction.
1. Infinite size-range; infinite time-range.
2. Of energymasspacetime (a synonym for Reality/God)
3. Distinction (separate entities; the infinitely many things) and anti-distinction (Reality is one)
opposition (meaning it´s unintuitive but true – we didn´t evolve to consider “two simultaneous
different ´events´ that co-exist/are the same” to be a valid reasoning).
The above three points stumble through the evolved mind´s obstacle course with its unseeabilities &
abstract oppositions and is, taken as a whole, a full account for why we (and anything/Reality) exists.
An existential theory is a theory which explains any existing thing´s existence – the universally accepted
existential theory has the 3 sub-ideas just listed. This makes it unintuitive/repulsive to our one-answerseeking evolved logic, but all three sub-ideas are necessary and can´t be summarized into a smaller
compartment than “infinite size & time with infinitely much spacetime (nothing) and infinitely much
existence/energymass, and all of it contains distinction-antidistinction-opposition”.
How do we know that not something was left out? Let´s draw a size-time-diagram in which every
coordinate is a location of energymasspacetime (a part of Reality) with infinity-symbols symbolizing
infinite size and infinite time. Every object has some coordinate on this diagram and thus ever thing gets
is explanation from this diagram.
All of this – three distinct starting points to paths which merge, the philosophy arising from and which is
based on E=mc2, three sub-ideas that can´t be further summarized to the existential theory – all this
makes for a very 21st century theory which´s unintuitiveness (rebellion against evolved logic´s norms) is
the reason for why it wasn´t discovered until now. It will likely resemble a mental mess unless you
rehearse it and subdue the pitfalls of evolved logic (like “opposites can´t both be true” or “the invisible is
false”) using thorough argument.
All previous existential theories start from a single idea (like “God created…” or “the earth arose from an
egg”) while my theory rests on three ideas and the curriculum teaching it has three starting
points/paths.
The idea (existential theory), though, is true and is universal. It explains how, when the universe
becomes nothing again (as it is observed to be becoming), path B shows that nothingness mentions
existence and it would break laws of nature (would be absurd) if existene never came to be in a
framework that mentions it in E=mc2. This coincides with the merging of paths A & C which state that
the time-axis (Reality=energymasspacetime) is infinite) is infinite. The conclusion being that there has
been and will be infinitely many Big Bangs (which I´ll get a Nobel prize for discovering).