A Brief History of Creation - Part Two
So how can there be something from nothing? What is "nothing?"
Nothing is what didn't turn into the potential of something. If
there was something from nothing, then that nothing would have
turned into the potential of something, because when we ask, how
is there something from nothing, we ask this question from
something, when something already exists. If we take a deeper
look at "nothing," we'll discover that "nothing" is a paradox.
Any definition is something, so if we defined "nothing," then it
would become something, which contradicts its essence of being
"nothing." Another way of looking at "nothing" would be by means
of it being something that is meaningless. That is, "nothing"
could be something that does not relate and that no thing or no
one relates to. That is, if there was something totally alone in
the universe, then that would be nothing, but it would be
meaningless. If such existed, its existence would be external to
our perception, and as such, this "nothing" would be indefinite.
We said that the indefinite could be anything, as long as it is
not specified (not defined). However, if we nevertheless tried
to define "nothing" (the indefinite), what would we get then?
Since "nothing" is non-definable, it is transparent as the
object of our inquiry. So when we attempt to define it, all we
have is what we put into it, which is the process of definition.
"Nothing" stayed nothing, we didn't define it, only made the
process of definition explicit. "Nothing" gains meaning when we
fail to define it; but having tried, we are left with a bonus, a
something, which is our process of defining "nothing." Creation
of something from nothing is not a function of defining
something, but a function of attempting to define "nothing." And
then, if that process of definition - which already is an
existence - looks back at its origins, if this process of
defining investigates into its own genesis, then what does it
see? It sees itself. It sees the process of definition -
self-reference.
If there is nothing external to perception, then this process of
definition is the overall wholeness, the creator of meaning when
it can relate to itself. However, to have meaning, the process
of definition has to be defined; this definition would be a
self-referential quasi-infinite and continuous process of
establishing borders that create the indefinite beyond that
establishes borders creating the indefinite beyond that
establishes borders... which means, wholeness would continuously
and forever fail to define itself while succeeding to define
something - anything but itself.
Of course, both the totally defined and the totally indefinite
are idealized notions that would be inconsistent with the
Holophanic loop logic, nor can they be found in nature. The
totally indefinite would be the total meaningless nothing, the
kind of non-being that cannot be fathomed because if we would
think about it, it would already be something. On the other
hand, there can be no total definition either. I have used the
term uncertainty of sameness to describe the logical
impossibility of total definition. A defined entity can be said
to have reached sameness -- it is the same as itself --
which means that it is, it exists as something definite, no
matter which parameters defined it. However, no sooner does our
object achieve sameness than the uncertainty of sameness raises
its ugly head. Could it have been defined differently? Yes, of
course. Could it have additional parameters? Yes, of course.
Could it have been defined more precisely? Yes, of course. This
uncertainty of sameness is the indefinite included in the
definition, which is the result of including the tools of
definition in the definition. Since 'a' can only be
defined as 'a' with meaning if it implies 'not-a'
(the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition), and since
'a' can only have meaning as 'a' because it is
different from everything else (the everything else is the
indefinite beyond the borders, which actually gives meaning to
'a'), the meaning of 'a' depends on 'not-a.'
When the meaning of something depends on the indefinite, on what
our defined object is not, then this indefinite is necessarily
included in the process of definition. This logical implication
that perception of meaning is only possible if and only if the
indefinite is included within the perception is the reason why
the 19th century dream of a consistent and complete axiomatic
system with only well defined (explicit) empty signs had to fail
(see more about that in my article, The Loop
Logic). In spite of the fact that logic is the fundament
of algorithms and computer science, it had neither the
aspiration nor the ability to be connected to the real world
precisely because its propositions were so anemic regarding
meaning. In the effort to exclude any hint of the indefinite,
logical inference was confined to a binary type of world of true
and false and lacking any correlation with life and
experiencing. However, including the indefinite in the process
of definition not only makes the loop logic the fundament of
existence, but determines the necessity of existence. With the
birth of Holophany, Heidegger's question, "Why is there
anything at all, rather than nothing?" becomes irrelevant.
When existence is relations, and relating is the act of
perceiving, and perceiving is the process of definition, then
existence is the overall lawfulness, the isomorphous lawfulness
of the process of definition - the loop of Creation. What is
being perceived, what is being stabilized, which significance is
brought to the foreground from the amorphous background of the
indefinite, depends on the non-linear rules of complex
interactions. Thus the loop logic emphasizes the creation of
essents rather than their interactions.
Is there a lawfulness responsible for any and every existence?
An electron and a dog are very different creatures; so what
invisible lawfulness is responsible for the existence of both?
What kind of lawfulness would fulfill such demands? The answer
is, isomorphism -- the same logical inner structure in entirely
different representations. Whether an electron, a dog or the
weather, each could be a different realization of the same inner
logical structure. Creation of anything is the creation of
meaning, which is an act of definition. The act of definition
attempting to define itself is consciousness. So consciousness,
or the soul if you wish, is not some invisible copy of our body
carrying our identity, but the lawfulness of Creation expressed
as our individual qualitative essence. Of course, it has been
endlessly stated that we are God, that we are parts of God, and
similar phrases. This is true, but true in the sense that God is
the lawfulness that unfolds Creation, and this lawfulness is
inherent in all creation including the creatures therein. It
could be argued, that a soul, a person is more than mere
definitions and intellect. If this logic is the logic of
anything and everything, then it should be able to delineate the
logical structure of experience as well. Indeed.
Anything that has meaning has to be defined, which places it
somewhere on the scale between the continuous and the discrete,
between the indefinite and the definite. The indefinite,
continuous, infinite tends in the direction of the meaningless,
whereas the meaningful is at best imprecise. Experience is the
process of attempting to define the indefinite. When we try to
capture an experience in a description, we are actually defining
our attempt at defining the indefinite. The experience is
continuous whereas its description, the definition is discrete.
Just as we can never define wholeness, we can never define
experience. Any description, any definition, is by nature
discrete, whereas the net experience is continuous. So when we
have an experience or perception and we become aware of having
that experience, then we give it meaning by defining what it is.
By doing this we create a discrete replica of the experience,
yet the experience remains continuous and non-definable,
non-discretizable. Experience is connected to learning. The
person encounters something new. How do we know that something
is new? Because it is inconsistent with our system. So when we
interact with it, we have to integrate it, to assimilate it into
our system. If we met something that was not new to the system,
then our system would recognize it as part of itself. When that
recognition does not occur, the system is interacting with
something new. That is the impact. The system adjusts to include
the new - that is the change. One's selfhood is the path of
changes following one's experiences.
Our knowledge of the experience - whatever it might be
that we experience - makes it exist for us. We could say, one
only experiences when one is aware of experiencing. How do we
know that we are aware of experiencing something? By
experiencing it, we experience the awareness of experiencing. In
this sense, experience and awareness of the experience,
experiencing the awareness of the experience, being aware of
experiencing the awareness of the experience, etc. is an
infinitely continuous chain, which is what defines what
experience is (not the interpretation of a specific experience,
but experience in its general sense). And that's the
definition of experience: an infinite loop of the process of
becoming aware.
When "nothing" is the limit of both the totally indefinite and
the totally defined, then that's like a circle of going from
something to nothing to something to nothing, etc. The 'going'
here means perception. "Nothing" is only a notion that has
meaning if it has been perceived, in fact, a paradox. If it
really is "nothing," then it cannot be defined, and hence, it
has no meaning. Yet if I relate to it, then it is something. So
whenever I relate to "nothing," whenever I say, Creation of
something from nothing, that "nothing" has meaning for me, and
hence, it is significance -- it is something just like any other
something. That is, the structure of "nothing" is the same
structure as that of something. Essentially, something from
nothing is formation, not Creation, since nothing is also
something. Then what is Creation? Creation is rather the
creation of nothing from something, because Creation is the
process of definition, and when we define, we create the
indefinite beyond the definition, which at its limit is nothing,
and only then can we have something from nothing... Oh yes, the
loop. A true loop is only such if it contains its own source. If
nothing can be proven to exist external to perception, then
logic must be a loop, and existence is a logical necessity
inferred by the loop.
Including the indefinite in the process of definition has far
reaching consequences. It means that the tools of the definition
are necessarily included in the definition. It means that
meaning can only occur when there is both definition and also
experience. It means that consciousness (whether it succeeds to
define or not) must be part of science or any so-called
objective endeavor. It means that any and all perception
includes experience. The interaction with the indefinite, the
experience, is what gives meaning to the defined. Perception,
meaningful definition, can only occur in a highly flexible
complex system that can learn and change. That's the difference
between us and an electron, which only has fixed relations, and
consequently, limited interactions. An electron always succeeds
in defining, or it would be more correct to say, it can only
interact with what it succeeds in defining. If it encounters the
indefinite, it assumes a state of superposition.
Where is God in the loop of Creation? If we wanted to define
God, the totality, we could not define God, because by the act
of definition we would create the beyond, what is beyond God,
which contradicts God's totality. Therefore, no definition of
God would do justice to God, and every such definition would
truncate God's wholeness. If God is indefinable, then God is
indefinite. If God is indefinite, then I create God by the
implication of the act of definition - any definition, because
every definition creates the beyond, the indefinite beyond the
borders of the definition. In that sense, this is consistent
with the statement that I create God by my perception
(definition). This does not say that I perceive God, but that my
perception implies the existence of the indefinite (God). This
means that if I perceive a dog, this perception implies the
existence of God. If I perceive that I perceive, then that
implies the existence of God. If I perceive dust, a table, an
idea, whatever, then that implies the existence of God. If I
experience, then that implies the existence of God. That's
because any existence implies the existence of God. And that's
because any existence is such if it relates or is related to, if
it has meaning, if even partially it has been defined, which
means, its mere definition implies the indefinite beyond the
borders of the definition, it implies God, the indefinable. So
one cannot directly perceive God (perhaps that is why it was
stated in the Bible that no one could see God's face and live =
exist - "no man shall see me and live..." - Exodus 33: 20), but
only know about God by implication, which means, the implication
of the indefinite - God - is what attributes meaning to any
existence.
However, "God" does not equal "indefinite," but the process
that implies the existence of the indefinite is what could
be said to be God, since that's the process of Creation. This is
the process of Creation that both creates something, existence,
and also nothing, the indefinite. This is why this logic is a
loop.