0 - A new natural start of the beginning with no thing
A new start with nothing seems simple: “nothing” is just “not a thing”, literally being a perfect and unambiguous denial of a thing as vague description or indication...
This expresses the generally opinion “that things do consist of mass or matter,” as everybody will confirm you when he has seen it with his very own eyes, even when no one is able to define “mass or matter” by objective and un-ambiguous alpha-words.
So will a new start of the beginning with no thing disclose how actually other words should be used, being more precise and less ambiguous? Or will Nature command to apply different alpha-words??
And what about the old opinion “that mass or matter would be spiritless, said to be
"in-animated”, is this just referring to a classic part of our history of human's or is it a clear hint directing to other characteristics, waiting to be exactly identified?
Only a “boundless, unlimited and infinite open & free spirit can accept all facts as presented and disclosed by Nature, without prejudices using your brains to analyse them and reject all myths, reminding you the key question of freedom, having a free choice to do otherwise than the main stream of people used to do...///////
This also means that a new "Natural Start of the Beginning with Nothing" must be based on an “axiom”, an alpha-word to describe a basic, most elementary, self-evident truth, a proposition or postulate which can not be explained or proven by simpler, more basic words...
And because communication between human beings must be based on a language which is un-ambiguous, each new “identifying alpha-word or -name” will be underlined between “quotation marks”, its definition or description being based on alpha-letters in alpha-sentences, alpha-paragraphs or even alpha-chapters.
This absolute first “axiom” is indeed self-evident, being the unambiguous starting point for the “search of the process of creation or genesis of mass or matter”:
Axiom 1 - “no thing needs no cause nor source to exist”
This axiom also implies that "some thing is perfectly opposed to no thing" because it requires some cause or source of its creation and it also provided the answer to the absolute first question:
”should the process of genesis// creation// formation// generation etc. etc. be started?”
Its undeiable response is given each morning as unique & unambiguous personal answer when you admire the image of your own wholiness in the mirror... an observation which also enforces you to accept the existence of at least one “dmu as decision making unit” even when this turns out to be way above your highest level of understanding.
When the logic and logidstic order of nature is accpeted, the new start with nothing will
step by step disclose the
“All Unifying Theory of Nature – AuTheoN ”
which rules each cycle of the process” ever since , also presenting how it is subjected to a simple set of “oer-conditions”, there are no older ones, confirmed by the unified
two-oneness which was, is and ever will be the “cause or source of your own beginning.
The first two-oneness
Axiom 1 also discloses the perfect opposition between no thing and “some thing”, the
adjective “some” being used to refer to an undefined “thing” which nevertheless is inseparably related to the existence of (preliminary) defined “mass or matter”, a detailed and unambiguous precision being only possible when the process of creation will be fully identified.
The opposition between no thing and one thing shows a very precise quantity of two, being a "two-oneness" always offering two -and never more than two- possibilities, dimensions, characteristics, identities or entities etc. etc. in a multitude of appearances waiting to be defined and identified by unambiguous alpha-words.
But this also implies that this is just half a two-oneness, the other half which is opposed to the verb defining requireing “quantisizing” as new verb which identifies the beta-part by the “size or dimension etc. etc.” of the “smallest possible” unity in the process of creation. It is this two-oneness which allows to discover all kinds of relations as result of beta-type operations and -formulas as shown by nature in its step by step process of creation.
But when no thing requires no creative cause or source of whatever kind, this implies that
"it always has been there”, in a “boundless, unlimited and infinite” quantity, three adjectives which emphasize that this quantity is not only beyond any human imagination, simply because pure alpha-language simply proves that "no image can be made of no thing, just as no image ever can be made of a boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity.
The consequence is aiso that a boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity of nothing can never be quantisized, which in -its own way- is in perfect opposition to the challenging objective to define & quantisize each dimension, characteristic, identity or entity etc. etc. of the process of creation in an unambiguous way.
But Nature's processes of creation also command to respect its strict “logistic order”: confirming the old classic knowledge that “some thing is created out of nothing”, showing also how Aristotle’s statement “ex nihilo nihil fit”, no thing comes from nothing” is wrong, now being replaced by the unambiguous logic & logistic order that “annihilation or destruction of some thing is only possible after it has been created”, as Part II.
In perfect opposition to all results obntained by our ancestore Nature shows no gaps just as “no corners are cut” as typical habit of inpatient humans, and there are “no jumps to conclusions”. No "fundamental questions" are "denied nor darkmooned”, even when sometimes more than two thousand years are required before Nature's proper answers can be understood "when its thime is right"...
The consequence of the principle of a two-oneness is its unique & unambiguous characteristic that “one part can not exist without the other”, they are “complimentary" having an inseparable relation: “some thing” can not exist when the existence of “no thing” is not acknowledged as well.
This turns out to be a first example of an “absolute truth”, characterised by presenting two equal values which are “reciprocating and hence reversible”, like the oerlaw of action & reaction forces as well known example. Nature will provide many other examples, till finally you can no longer deny or darkmoon your own two-oneness....And as part of a
two-oneness this also necessitates to describe what one part is and what it is not, both being difficult to arrive at comprehensible results.
Two-oneness is no dualism
The conclusion that each two-oneness does have just one “source or cause” should not be mixed or confounded with the Eastern concept of “dualism” as (meta-)physical or philosophical concept, vaguely based on two “opposed or even parallel most elementary fundamental causes or principles which can no further be reduced, being independent of each other”...This is definitely not a two-oneness of Nature which has just one unique
& unambiguous source waitng to be defined & quantisized in an same way...
When dualism is said to be opposed to “non-dualism” this is just as vague, not only because it is never defined in an unique & unambiguous way but also because nature will prove again and again that this is Eastern concept is not in accordance with the oerconditions of the new Natural Start of the Beginning with nothing.
This start reveals also how kilometres of philosophical texts of “alpha-nature” were not enough to arrive at an understandable description of even the most simplified process of creation, especially when the vast majority of editors do share the opinion “that beta-formulas and especially beta-figures as used in mathematics and physics would reduce the number of purchasers”...denying & darkmooning the statement of the Chinese wiseman Confucius; "one picture is worth more than thousand words"...
Nature will enforce you to accept that human alpha-texts are just part of an inseparable two-oneness proving again and again that the other part, as “beta-“part is a necessity, commanding not only precise, unique & unambiguous identifications & definitions but also that each one gets “quantisized”. A new verb which completes the two-oneness by defining its “quantum” as “smallest possible unity” in the process of creation,
So even when each next step in the process of creation is identified as
two-oneness, being its only building block, this also means that it repeats itself
endlessly in a consequent & consistent way.
This observation also obliges to check & verify all alpha-words which are going to be
used to describe and define each step of the process in an unambiguous and most
precise way, proving how some of these alpha-words were not correctly coined by
our ancestors or did get another meaning in the past.
A most enlightening exercise.
So it can’t be a surprise that as part of the present population of planet Earth, you are indeed unique & unambiguous, just as any snow flake were found to be unique & unambiguous, or leafs of the same type of tree, so actually it could be no surprise that is has been shown “how even drops of water reflect the influences of different types of music they were exposed to”...
The usual example of all the grains of sand in deserts or all the stars in the sky might be
an impressive quantity, but it definitely is not without bounds, without limits or without a finite
end as will be shown.
The Greek introduced the alpha-word “atom” to refer to their smallest possible quantity of
chemical elements “which can not be divided or decomposed in smaller parts without
destroying its identity and characteristics”. But when later observations were forcing to
accept the existence of smaller “sub-atomic” particles, the present overflow of all kinds of
“most elementary particles” is highly ambiguous, being no part of a two-oneness...
Two-oneness is no reductionism
This new Start with Nothing is in perfect opposition to the classic method of “reductionists” when is tried to reduce present knowledge step by step to an earlier -more basic- state, hoping to arrive at a better understanding of nature’s phenomena. A typical example is the “philosophy or theory of uncertainty” as developed in 1927CE ‘) by Werner Heisenberg [1901-1976]. “Ungenauigkeit" (imprecision) being one of the foundations of “quantum theories”. Several jumps in nature will prove that this human method of thinking can’t work, as proven by all discontinuities in nature.
In perfect opposition to reductionism, the natural Beginning of the Beginning of the process of creation of mass and matter etc. etc. will show the All Unifying Theory of Nature - AuTheoN as all overruling principle before the Beginning ever could be started...
‘) the slow progress of human development can be deduced from the indicated years, counted since the start
of the Common Era CE. Although launched by the Roman emperor Julius Ceasar "counting & measuring
time" must be independent of rulers or whatever system of dogmas, beliefs or religions.
.
.