Introduction

We need to connect infinity and nothingness at the same space-time point – which would require nothing less than pure consciousness. As T.S. Eliot stated “a place of complete simplicity, costing not less than everything (when the fire and the rose are one).”

Once we have more than one element, we can begin to discuss the relationship between each of them.

---

Now this thing, different from the no-thing-ness that it emerged from, will undergo a change of state. First, in its emergence from the perfect nothingness, and secondly, as a finite thing, goes through the cycle of existence.

This adds another characteristic to these objects of existence and that is one of activity, a dynamic allowing for a manifest change of state. Recognizing this “motion” in the dynamics of existence, means that these two elements have a relationship.

Let’s refer to this object as I, or one. For the I to have any meaning, it must recognise itself as different from its surroundings. Yet if the surroundings cannot support its existence, it will not survive. Thus there is an almost symbiotic relationship between the object and its surroundings — even if only surrounded by “nothing”.

If there is one I, there is very likely to be another that the I recognises. In fact, there are numerous elements in the universe that it can recognise. In order to exist, the original I is in constant relation with its surroundings and the objects in its environment, otherwise I will not be able to recognise any change of state.

Now, having identified at least one thing, we can assume that there is more than just that one object. In fact, we have discovered there are large, perhaps infinite, collections of objects and things in our world.

Before we can investigate the dynamics, i.e., as a change of state, that might exist between any of the elements chosen, there has to be a “relationship” of some sort between them in order to be able to recognise any change of state. For the dynamic present to have any meaning to the ‘I’ that we have proposed, ‘I’ has to have some sort of relationship with this dynamic, otherwise ‘I’ will not be able to identify any change in the state of affairs.

Proposal

#not-I

Let us choose an object, or set, that we designate $I$ that exists in the universe $U$ (1). We propose that $I$ has an exact, equal and opposite $\text{negative-}I$, represented by $-I$ (2). That is, the two are equal, except for the fact that $-I$ is the negative or reflection of $I$. Now we can also propose $\sim{I}$ which is different from $-I$ (3). Whereas $-I$ is the exact opposite, or reflection, of $I$, $\sim I$ is all that $I$ is not, and, unless we are working in a finite space, is, to all intents and purposes, infinite.

Discussion

If we exist in an infinite universe $U$, and if $I$ is finite, surrounded by $U$, then $\sim{I}$ must be, in effect, infinite. Assuming the universe to be infinite, even if $I$ is infinite, then $\sim I$ must also be infinite — though presumably a greater infinity than that of $I$. This might get a little deep for the average reader, but we know that $U > I$ then $\sim{I} > I$. Remember, we are talking about infinities in this case. For if $I$ is finite, then it is a no-brainer. Finally, if $I \equiv \text{ } \sim{I}$, then it defines the midpoint, for $I$ and $\sim{I}$ are then equal.

From the point of view of the $I$, $I$ defines both $\sim{I}$ and $I$. Perhaps the truth is that $\sim{I}$ is the one that defines the $I$, that holds the boundaries, the limits, of what $I$ is. The original ocean was one of not-ness, in which the $I$ that I am, appeared. In order for $I$ to appear, there had to be a space in which I could appear, which is define by $\sim{I}$. The moment that $\sim{I}$ appeared, the $I$ could emerge, the $-I$, which is the “shadow” or anti-form emerged as well. Now this $-I$ that appears simultaneously must also be formed by $\sim{I}$, as if $\sim{I} -I \implies I$. This is based on the principle that every element in the quantum space has a reflection, an anti-particle, that is “equal but opposite”. That $I$, which is not $\sim{I}$, appears as a consequence, a space, a ‘place’, within the Infinite, designated here as $-I$. Somethingness has emerged from Nothingness.

Think of this in terms of a circle that I draw in the sand. It defines three structures, the one that is inside the circle, the circle’s boundary itself, and the space outside the circle.

This is corroborated by the Kabbalistic doctrine of the Constraint, or Tzimtzum. the process of the eternal nothingness, Ain Sof, removing itself to make space for Creation. It was necessary for the Infinite Light to constrain Itself so that Creation could emerge.

From the principle of the Reality of One, in which the only reality is the One, I see that $I$ am different. In order for me to recognise or relate to anything else in the universe, there must be other $I$’s — or somethings that are not the One.

Thus we derive the Axiom of Relationship.

Axiom of Relationship

If we propose two points, A & B, and both are static, then whatever connection there exists, will be static too. Although the channel that connects them might be dynamic, the conduit remains the same “length”. There is also a ~A, or not-A, in which B exists.

There is the concept of a Universe, U, consisting of A $\cup$ ~A. We know already that A & B are disjoint. In other words they are completely separate and there is no element/part of A that is in B, and vice-versa.

Now, if B happens to move – still remaining disjoint from A – it will move in A’s not-space, ~A. Although A has not changed, ~A – which includes the space which B vacated – has changed! In addition, ~B – the space which B vacated – has changed too! In fact, the whole universe is now different – and we have no means with which to ever measure that. Our sages say: “The very act of measuring changes what is being measured,” bolstered by the information that quantum mechanics has reached concerning the influence of an observer on the event.

The conclusion from all of this that “It is all connected.” If we see things as disjoint, or separate, it is because we do not have the ability to see all the connections that are there.

Think of it as in huge, complex chess game, what Herman Hesse called ‘The Glass Bead Game’. You move one piece. The whole game changes. The whole game.