Radek Rzepoluch

 

The Beginning Question 


  "First, there was NOTHING, then SOMETHING appeared." This is the premise of all former theories on the Beginning of the World.


  What other way could SOMETHING have come from, if not from NOTHING; as it obviously couldn't have been from SOMETHING - and what wonder caused this? 

  People explain this in many ways.

There are those who say it was actually a wonder. 
  There are others, who do assent the Law that SOMETHING actually can't come from NOTHING, but it could have been that some anomaly happened, like it sometimes happens to Laws. (Maybe the Universe jumped out like some particles do, they arise opposing Physics, they become where they should not, just from Nowhere?
But it's just us who can't perceive where they actually come from. There is some Law of higher level we are not presently aware of. If there is an anomaly in the Law we know, that just means the Law's formula stands only for a part of another formula, much more complicated one.)

  There are some who consider that SOMETHING didn't come from NOTHING, but from itself, curled into a circle, as Time is like a snake biting its train; for some people, it's easier to believe the Beginning came from the End, than from NOTHING at all.
And there are many who think that if it's not easy to say that the whole Universe arose from NOTHING at all, it would be much easier to explain the problem that at first, there was something ... so little, so tiny, so diminutive, some Pra-Atom, just a Pra-Atommie, something just like nothing... that almost didn't exist at all, this one could appear somehow, on the sly, barely, through a mouse hole... escaping from the reign of the Laws. 
Alas, it's not the point yet, because... to the affliction of scientists... this Pra-Atom, though so minute... it just exists, and its existence is neither smaller nor bigger than any other existence. 

  The question about the Beginning is really weird. We need to ask about the question.
People ask it, because they have had their own beginning. Though, not all beings actually have to be alike human nature. 

  People can't understand how SOMETHING could come from NOTHING, because the phrase they use is wrong. They say: 
"At first there was NOTHING, and then EVERYTHING was."
The mistake is clear. Because if something doesn't exist, it never does. Hence, it can't be first, before, later, or in the end. 

  The World hasn't come from NOTHING. 
  It just IS. 

  The way NOTHING should be perceived is that... it is not. So, there is no need to ask where NOTHING came from. 

  What does the word "beginning" mean? What kind of beings can begin in general? Is there something that can't begin at all?

  If "The World couldn't have come from NOTHING", then maybe let's not break the window while the door is open. Let's stop thinking how to circumvent the Law, but let us put the problem another way:
  "The World couldn't have come." 

  Existence is not this kind of being that could have begun earlier, later, or perhaps, not at all. There is no reason to worry about it, nor to thank for its presence. 

  What does it mean: "Is there Existence"? It means nothing else but: "There is no Nothingness".

  "To begin" ... this phrase contains the form of Time. But what is Time? Time affects only those beings that can be altered in some way. Meanwhile, Existence is completely invariable. Changes can apply to its forms, but not to its whole in general.

  What is Nothingness compared to Existence?

  "EVERYTHING came from NOTHING".
But before asking a question, which contains any notions, it would be wise to realize their meaning. 
  What is EVERYTHING?
  What is NOTHING?

  EVERYTHING IS NOTHING.

  Let us imagine a Potato, taking up all available space with no exceptions. There is nothing more but the Potato, and it doesn't contain any internal structure. It consists only of the Potato. 
  Does the Potato exist? 
  It can't perceive it is here, because to be here, some there is needed. And there is no there. 
  It can't perceive its existence, because perception takes two components: something that perceives and something that is 
being perceived.
  There is no Potato. It is the absolute vacuum.

  But if there appeared some place just for a little Strawberry, then it would be here, and there would be the potato. It is the Potato and I am the Strawberry, which I conclude from the fact I am in the face of the Potato, I am the thing the Potato somehow is not, where it somehow is not and how it is not, somehow.

  So there is This, and That, and Whis, and Phat, I am, you are, she is, chair is, stars, trees, bugs, and atoms. It all exists in some separation, but there is not EVERYTHING IN GENERAL!

  So far, this equation could have been inferred:

  1 = 0 = infinity

  The ALL-NOTHING, "existing", "before" explodes, because in a way, everything is in the same place. There is overpressure and it "explodes", and because of the "explosion" we have what we have: Filip - Sitting - On - The Chair - For - An Hour. 

  Now and Before, we face EVERYTHING, which contains of EVERYTHING. 
We have EVERYTHING as well, but now This is Here, and There is That. The famous explosion has some different form than the one we used to know. 
EVERYTHING exploded, but EVERYTHING is. So?

  The shape of the creative detonation was-is dual. One, it was the Explosion, its eruption might was vectored, directed outside. But it's the Implosion as well: Everything implodes inside itself. 
  Overlapping of timespace's forms, stuffing everything in one spot, being absolute entity, nothingness - it causes the detonation. 

  Perhaps anti-matter in not any minus matter, but normal, just coming from a kind of another world, another place. When two different forms, different places meet in one place by any accident, there is detonation by absolute density. Density is weight. 
When particles are thick, the substance is heavy. And if they get in exactly the same spot, the piece of timespace starts to fall inside, it ex-im-plodes and we face something just like the Universe creation process.

  It's not that there are two separate states: "EVERYTHING is" and "NOTHING is not". We have just one state, which can 
be named:
  "EVERYTHINGISNOTHINGISNOT" 

  The Detonation was not before. The World couldn't have begun, since Time doesn't influence the All-Nothing. 
  Existence of Time is not absolute. But, like all else, it is only in some connection. Time applies only to such elements, such relations that any influences can be exerted on, that can change - while in the case of Existence, which can exist only (as ALL is NOTHING, which Cannot Exist only) - the Time has no part there, there is no Time. That's why Existence couldn't have begun.
  For example: Time does influence Filip, who writes, then he eats, then he brushes his teeth and then he goes to sleep, and so on, he gets older and older and in a hundred years there will be no Filip...
... so, while Filip WILL BE THERE after one year...
... the Existence itself it IS THERE after one year, after billion years, and it IS a year ago, in palaeolith, anywhen.

  The All-Nothing's existence lasts a single moment and all time.

  There can't exist any being other than a relative being. There is no Substance and there is no Matter. The only thing that exists, is the Relation. 

  Reality? When I touch my nose with my finger, there is no touch, no finger and no nose, but it's a piece of the general formula instead, which accomplishes the Persistence, the Existence, the No-Zero Axis: 1 = 0 = infinity.