Part 14: The Death

 

Part 14: The Death

The Nature of the Fundamental

Paper 5

By {Redacted}

9/10/19 (like around 7PM)

Theoretical true maximum = everything, everywhere, always, existing in every way, for every reason, with every out come, doing everything, in every way, for every reason, with every out come.

Currently within the nonphysical it proves the existence of infinity as there is always the maximum amount of information within it. 

Can it by itself prove the existence of one or the number line? 

What is the maximum within the nonphysical?

Is it true maximum?

Is everything, everywhere, always, in every way, doing everything, in every way, for every reason, with every out come?

Does everything exist within the nonphysical?

I believe so.

Every single piece of information exists within the nonphysical as either true or false.

Does everything exist everywhere within the nonphysical?

I don’t know if there is more than one location within the nonphysical, but I would say that most likely there is only one location and thus everything exists everywhere.

So probably.

Does everything exist, everywhere, always?

Yes.

Does everything exist, everywhere, always, in every way?

Every piece of information within the nonphysical is either true or false. 

It is never both, so I believe this is a no.

Does everything exist, everywhere, always, in its way, for every reason?

I don’t think so.

I believe everything within the nonphysical is determined either true or false based on whether it is true or false. 

Does everything exist, everywhere, always, in its way, for its reason, with every outcome?

I don’t know, maybe.

I’m not really sure about this one.    

I don’t know what the outcome of something being true or being false is.   

It could have every outcome, I don’t know.   

And I don’t know if it matters at all.

Does everything exist, everywhere, always, doing everything?

Every piece of information within the nonphysical can only express three states: being true, being false, or possibly switching between them (this might not be a thing that they can do as they likely switch instantaneously with no time in between.) 

No piece of information can be both true and false, so I believe this is a no. 

And I believe this being a no makes the rest no.

This one, and the three following don’t really apply to the nonphysical as everything within it doesn’t do anything other than exist in two different possible ways.

(Do things do things or do they just exist in different ways?)

(Does being about to do something count as doing something?)

So essentially, within the nonphysical everything exists, everywhere, always, in its way, for its reason, maybe with every outcome, maybe with the outcome of making something true or false, or maybe some other outcome/s.

The nonphysical always contains a maximum amount of information, yet “the theoretical true maximum” does not exist.

“The theoretical true maximum” can’t exist. Thus because it can’t, it cannot be implied to exist within the theory.

Within the physical world, the theoretical minimum might be 0. But it is not possible for 0 to exist: if nothing existed, “nothing” would exist, therefore leaving us with 1 thing. (I honestly don’t know how good of an argument this is.)

So the minimum for the universe would either be 0 or 1.

As for the maximum within this universe, I don’t know if this theoretical true maximum is actually what the true maximum would be. 

It might be if things could be multiple different things, in multiple different places, in multiple different ways, doing multiple different things, in multiple different ways, for multiple different reasons, with multiple different outcomes, all at once. 

If there truly was the maximum within the physical wouldn’t this be the case? 

It may have something to do with the nonphysical. It is possible that the information within the nonphysical cannot be true and false at the same time. 

The idea that nothing can be both true and false at the same time might just be fundamental enough that it doesn't need a reason. 

Or the reason could simply be that it is contradictory, but I am not sure if that matters when we are at this fundamental a level. Maybe it would be impossible for something that is both and false to exist, and thus if something needed to be both true and false it couldn’t exist. 

Truth seems like it could easily be fundamental enough to be the fundamental.

Because I think that there does need to be a fundamental. 

If there is not a fundamental then how would there be anything? 

Everything would exist for no reason. 

Also, were the maximum to truly exist, all of the stuff that isn’t everywhere at once must also exist. Meaning the theoretical true maximum wouldn’t be all that could be part of the maximum.

The OG wrench of things happening at random and why don’t they do that here might just be true. Maybe it is just a coincidence that we are within a universe that seemingly has hard unbreaking rules without anything happening outside of them. Or maybe there are a bunch of things happening outside of the rules and we just don’t see it. But even the universe with hard unchanging laws with no exceptions still has to exist within the maximum. And although this would be completely incomprehensibly coincidental with the completely incomprehensibly low odds of this being the universe that we live in, it could just simply be the case. Also maybe the odds wouldn’t even be that low as I would assume by this wrench the vast majority of all universes have a bunch of completely random rules where pretty much everything that happens is its own thing, and in a universe where this is the case no human would be able to evolve there would be no way for a human like us to exist. 

Actually now that I think about it there definitely has to be ways that humans can exist within those universes, as if there wasn’t there wouldn’t be the maximum within the physical. 

---

(highest to lowest amounts of complexity must exist at what I believe to be an equal amount. So who knows how complex we actually are.) {Redacted} MIGHT {Redacted} EXIST!{Redacted}

 IF THEY DIDN’T THEN THERE WOULDN’T BE THE MAXIMUM!{Redacted}

I think Truth is the fundamental. Truth (meaning true or false) boils down to Is and Is Not. 

Right now I believe that “Is”, “Is Not”, “Both Is and Is Not”, and “Neither Is or Is Not” are seemingly the fundamental.

Is, Is Not, Both, and Neither.

(“Don’t make me cream”)

What is more fundamental than this? 

I am not sure if there is anything more fundamental than this. I don’t think there is anything more fundamental than what we can conceive of within the human brain. Maybe something with far greater intelligence could conceive of something more fundamental. Maybe there is much more than this that I am not equipped to have any access to. But if that is the case it really shouldn’t matter to me. If it is impossible for me to comprehend then why should I care about it. 

And thus I believe that truth (Is, Is Not, Both, and Neither) are the fundamental of this verse.

What does this mean?

Both the maximum and the minimum, are there, and both do and don’t exist. 

The Maximum is that everything is, everything is not, everything is both, and everything is neither.

The Minimum is that nothing is, nothing is not, nothing is both, and nothing is neither. 

There is also everything in between 

If there wasn’t there wouldn’t be the maximum.

Nor would there be the minimum? 

{Redacted}

An example of in between might be like:

7 things are, 5 things are not, 6 things are both, and 3 things are neither.

Or it might be different.

Or it could just be that there is already everything within one of those. 

What I had been referring to as the “minimum” or “maximum” might be the minimum the maximum and everything in between all at once so there is just one. 

Vistti?

We know that there is one thing that likely has all of these things.

I am not sure if they also contain each other.

This one thing that contains it all is Vistti.

I believe that right off the bat we can split Vistti.

I am not sure if there is a place where there is only Is, and Is Not is not present.

I am not sure if this is possible.

I believe this is the same with Is Not.

(could Is Not be inherently different from Is? like is there a really big Is side and Is Not side? Probably not.)

I don’t know if it is possible for there to be a scenario where Is is there and Is Not is not. 

And vise versa. 

Maybe the scenario of perfect only Is and Perfect only Is Not is within the Both. 

As both i believe is both all Is, and all Is Not.

So the splits could be Neither is one verse, Both is one verse, and the mix of Is and Is Not is another. 

Or the splits could be: (unlikely)

Neither

Both (which may include pure Is and pure Is Not)

The mix of Is and Is Not 

The mix of Is, Is Not, and Both

The mix of Is, Is Not and Neither

The mix of Both and Neither

And the mix of Is, Is Not, Both, and Neither

In Xistance, Is and Is Not are the fundamental. Were there something more fundamental, fundamentally that thing either exists or it does not exist, so it either Is or Is Not, thus making it not as fundamental as Is and Is Not. 

The act of something more fundamental than Xistance existing disproves its own existence. 

The act of something more fundamental than Xistance not existing disproves its own existence. The act of something more fundamental than Xistance both existing and not existing at once disproves its own existence.

Only that which both doesn’t exist and doesn’t not exist can be more fundamental than Xistance.

If there (for lack of a better word) is (for lack of a better word) something within the Pure Neither (for lack of a better word) Verse then it is more fundamental than Xistance, if there is not then Xistance is the fundamental. 

(When I talk about the Neither I use a lot of words that don’t apply to the neither this is because there aren't words that do apply and these ones should be able to get my point across.)

But I believe that there is no way for something that exists to ever know of something of Neither as this would no longer make it Neither and I don’t think this is possible. 

So it is possible for there to be something more fundamental than Xistance but it is literally unreachable. It is unattainable knowledge to anything that exists or does not exist. So it is {Redacted} to attempt to find anything more fundamental than Xistance as for us Xistance is the fundamental. {Redacted}

It also seems that it is equally possible that nothing exists within the pure Neither and Xistance is the fundamental. 

This could all be a simulation on a computer program and within the Neither is the world where that program is being run. And that could go back indefinitely as that could be a simulation within a simulation. When we are dealing with things within the Neither It could be possible that there is no reason for anything. But there is no way of knowing. 

It is also equally possible that there is nothing within the Neither.

Within the Neither there could be the creator, the god.  

One of all power, knowledge, good, and bad. 

But it is also equally possible that there is nothing within the neither.

I am not sure if Neither is part of the fundamental (Xistance).

I don’t think it is. 

Neither is either more fundamental than Xistance or not there. As if there is nothing more fundamental than Xistance nothing can be outside of Xistance and Neither wouldn’t exist. Neither’s existence depends on weather Xistance is the fundamental. And so Neither could not be part of this fundamental because it wouldn’t exist if it was the fundamental.

So the Vistti split might be closer to:

Both (which may include pure Is and pure Is Not)

The mix of Is and Is Not 

The mix of Is, Is Not, and Both

And maybe Neither.

Or

Both

The Mix of Is, Is Not, and Both

And maybe Neither

So the fundamental is,

 Is, Is Not, and Both

If one thing exists what makes it special? Nothing. Why would we assume that something is special when everything is equal? Nothing is more, nothing is less, everything truly equal. If something was more than something else it would have to be more on a fundamental level, and everything at a fundamental level Is, Is Not or Both. None of those 3 things is more or less than any other. If one of these was more than another it would have to be more on the fundamental level. (You could argue that these 3 all would fall into Is.) But I believe it’s existence proves its existence and proves its own level of fundamentality. They are all the fundamental and equally part of the fundamental. (but they are all fundamentally different) They are not each the fundamental they are together the fundamental, they are the 3 essential parts of the fundamental, without any one of them there is not the fundamental. 

So if one thing exists within Is, nothing fundamentally makes that thing any different from any other thing: therefore, every other thing has the ability to exist within Is, and Nothing fundamentally makes that thing special in the way that it exists within Is, so every other thing is within Is, and fundamentally Is, Is Not, and Both are all equal, nothing makes Is (or any one of them) special in the way that it has everything within it, so every thing is also within all three of them. 

I believe that something would have to make something unequal to another thing in order for this not to be the case. You might actually have to make one of the 3 parts of the fundamental unequal in order for this not to be the case. Not sure.

RIght now I believe that you can split the Vistti into 2-3 parts or verses:

(Names Subject to change) 

The Pure (Both)

The Big Mix (the mix of Is, Is Not, and Both)

Or

The Pure (Both)

The Mix (the mix of Is and Is Not)

The Big Mix (the mix of Is, Is Not, and Both)

The Pure:

The Pure verse is where everything Both Is and Is Not all at once. It is where the so called “true Maximum” is. It is purely Is as everything Is. It is Purely Is Not as everything Is Not. and It is purely Both as everything is Both.

The Mix’s:

I am not sure if there are two of these because nothing says that there isn’t can’t or shouldn’t be. But I’m pretty sure that The Big Mix just has The Mix entirely within it already.

What about facts that apply to the whole verse or would apply to all the verses?

These may be covered in the Pure Verse. 

I think if anything can, it does, but one thing doing something won’t prevent another thing from happening because if it can it does. 

I think the Mix might be more complex than I thought. 

Either there can’t be multiple mix verses or there are infinite. 

Maybe there is a verse with every different amount of Is, Is Not, and Both. 

I don’t know if there can be facts that apply to Vistti as it is the fundamental. It may be that It is the fundamental and thus cannot be changed. 

The Pure verse is just where the three verses that are entirely Is, Is Not, or Both must meet as they must all always be together. 

They cannot exist without one another. 

Both requires that the Is and the Is Not to be there, and the Is and the Is Not require the Both. 

I think the verses are where things can be and anything outside of them is outside of the fundamental.

Not everything exists within every verse, but everything does exist within the Is, the Is Not and the Both. If everything existed within every verse, then everything would not exist within the Is, the Is Not, and the Both. Having separation between verses so that nothing can exist that applies to multiple might insure that everything exists within the three. 

Every verse could be a different everything. So that within each verse nothing outside of that verse exists. Yet there are multiple verses. From within a verse everything outside of that verse is not within Is, Is Not, or Both. 

If everything had the ability to include anything outside of a verse, there might be too much, everything would be bigger than it can be. 

Maybe all of the everything that can be within Is, Is Not, and Both will be within it. 

Nothing says that everything can’t span past the verse, and maybe it does. 

But I believe that it makes sense that there would be more everything that exist within the fundamentals if there was different everything. If every everything included true everything, everything could not exist within the fundamentals. 

So if everything always has to be everything then there is not everything within the fundamentals. Maybe everything is just the maximum that there can be.

I think that the true fundamental would have to be that everything exists within the fundamentals. If this is the true fundamental then everything does exist within the fundamentals.

Either, Everything exists within the fundamentals, Nothing exists within the fundamentals, or something in between.

It isn’t nothing as we exist.

If something in between everything and nothing was within the fundamentals it would require a reason. It is possible that the maximum is within this category.

Could something less than the maximum really be everything?

If the maximum is not everything is everything even real?

If something is impossible to reach does it truly exist?

How would it exist if it was unattainable?

Does anything lower than the minimum exist? No

So nothing higher than the maximum exists.

So either 

The maximum exists within the fundamentals

The minimum exists within the fundamentals

Or something in between.

It is not the minimum because we exist.

If it is something in between the minimum and maximum there would have to be some fundamental reason as to why it is the amount that it is, and why it is not the maximum. And fundamentally nothing makes is any more or any less, everything is completely equal, because of this (either) every amount exists within the fundamentals. ( i wasn’t expecting that.) 

So within every fundamental every amount exists. No amount is any more or any less than and because we know they exist some amount has to exist within them that isn’t no amount, and because nothing makes any amount special and it can’t be a null amount, it must be all amounts. 

So it isn’t everything that exists within the fundamentals, it is just all amounts. And if something is an amount higher than the highest amount it won’t exist within the fundamentals.

So what does this mean?

There might be one verse but I would doubt it.

Maybe there are things that are in the neither that aren't more fundamental than Xistance. 

Or maybe they all are. 

Is there any way in which this is not the case?

Well I don’t think that there are any alternatives to fundamentals. Everything can only exist, not exist, or Both. There is no around that. 

Is there any way that anything other than every amount of stuff exists within these fundamentals?

Well we can’t deny our own existence so there can’t be nothing.

So there must be some amounts within the fundamentals.

No amounts and all amounts are the only two scenarios where all amounts are equal. So any scenario other than all amounts involves unequal amounts. 

To create an unequal amount you need something to be fundamentally different about an amount. This fundamental difference is not found in Xistance. So in order for there to be an unequal amount there has to be something more fundamental than Xistence to give it this fundamental difference. 

So I believe in order for this not to be the case, there has to be something more fundamental than Xistance. This thing might exist within the neither but the problem is there is no way to know about it, and you cannot easily defend the existence of something that if it existed it would disprove its own existence. 

So where do we go from here?

Now we know that there are three fundamentals that make up Vistti. We know that within each one of these three is every amount. We know that everything that can happen does happen. 

What does it mean for the fundamentals to have “every amount” within them? 

Nothing says that things that prevent other things can’t happen because they prevent other things. Nothing is special, so there has to be something preventing things from being special. I don’t think that one thing could take away another. Every thing has its own verse. Every thing has its own verse for itself. Every thing has its own everything. So every thing would have to have its own every amount. Something more fundamental than Xistance. 

That might work if every thing had its own verse. Every thing is equal so every thing exists independently from one another. No two things could interact with one another, as this would make them fundamentally different to other things, and this fundamental difference is not seen in the Xistance for it would have to be something more fundamental. Meaning that everything exists within the fundamentals. 

Is there any other way of doing this? 

I don’t know if it would be possible for everything to interact with everything in every way. Or every amount of everything to interact with every amount of everything in every amount of ways every amount of ways.

I am not sure if this is how things work. I believe possibly that everything doesn’t interact with everything in every way, because if this was the case, I think everything might all be the same thing. Nothing would be any different from anything else. So there is every amount of one thing. When I think we want every amount of every amount of things. And I don’t think you can distinguish one thing from another if there is not a fundamental difference between them. 

Is there a fundamental difference between things?

If there is no fundamental difference between two things, are they the same thing?

I think so. 

Is it required that all things have fundamental difference in order for there to be all amount within the fundamentals? I believe that If everything is completely fundamentally different from everything else, everything may be equal, and it may work. But what would this fundamental difference be? What would give the things this fundamental difference? Could it really be provided by Xistance? I believe there has to be every amount of every aspect of everything within the fundamentals. Nothing makes any aspect special and thus they would all be all amounts. So I believe that there has to be every amount of things, and I believe if everything is fundamentally the same then there could only be every amount of something that is fundamentally the same as everything else. This thing must be fundamentally configured in one specific way. Nothing makes the way that this thing was fundamentally configured special in any way. So there is not only one way in which things can be fundamentally configured. No one fundamental configuration is any more or less than any other. So maybe every thing could have its own configuration. I believe this has the result of making every thing special, but at the same time still having every thing be equal and no thing any more or any less than another. 

How can you have every amount of things when there is no fundamental difference between anything? 

You only have one thing. 

So within the fundamentals you have to have every amount.

I believe within the fundamentals you need to have every amount of things. 

In order to have this you have to have every thing be fundamentally different.

So within the fundamentals you have every amount of every amount of things.

Is this all there is within the fundamentals?

Quite possibly.

What else would you need? 

What else needs to be within the fundamentals, is there even anything else that isn’t already within the fundamentals?

I believe just through this everything is within the fundamentals.

Well now we have everything within the fundamentals.

What does this mean?

What does everything within the fundamentals mean?

Is this “everything” nonphysical information? 

Is there even a physical and nonphysical or is there only the nonphysical?

There is all this truth that could be creating the illusion of a physical but it is really just a bunch of facts. If there was no physical then what would these facts be about?

But then also how can both the physical and the nonphysical both exist within the fundamentals?

Maybe the physical and the nonphysical are basically the same thing. Highly intertwined and co-dependant on each other. 

What is a thing?

If only nonphysical information is within the fundamental. Would the nonphysical hold all of the information of the physical within it?

I think that would make sense. 

So everything still exists within the fundamentals although the physical does not.

9/11/19

This would not be the case because nothing that exists can exist outside of the fundamentals.

So both the physical and the nonphysical must exist within the fundamentals.

If everything is within the fundamentals then there is a verse where the only thing that is true (within Is) is that Jim’s car is red, and everything else is false. Even Jim’s car is false (within Is Not) but it is still true that it is red. 

Nothing makes any one fact or thing special in the way that it can exist alone as the only thing within Is. If one thing can do this then all things can do this. 

Every fact must be like a thing. A things existence isn’t (i don’t think) based on the existence of any other thing. 

All things are equal so there can’t be things that can only exist if another specific thing exists.

The fact of Jim’s car being red doesn’t require the existence of Jim’s car for it to be true.

Argument Vistti XFund (name subject to change) :

Xistance is the most fundamental thing.

Xistance is the fundamental.

Nothing is more fundamental than Xistance.

If something existed that was more fundamental than Xistance, because that thing existed it’s existence would be more fundamental than itself and thus would disprove its own existence as it would not be more fundamental than Xistance. 

(Something cannot exist, not exist, or both exist and not exist if it was more fundamental than existence, as if it did it would disprove its own existence.)

Xistance can be split into 3, Existing (Is), Not Existing (Is Not), and Both Existing and Not Existing (Both).

(Xistance/the fundamental includes these three, I believe Vistti may include the Neither.)

All amounts exist within the fundamental. 

There is either all amounts, no amounts, or something in between.

We exist so we know that there cannot be no amounts. (why this is I don’t know yet.)

If the amount was something in between there would have to be something fundamentally different about this amount, this fundamental difference is not found within Xistance and if there is nothing more fundamental than Xistance there is nothing that can give this amount any fundamental difference.

So all amount(s) exist within the fundamental.

There is more than exists than just amounts. (This might have a hole.)

We cannot doubt our own existence, so we know that we exist. (Going from big to small.)

So at least one thing exists, and if one thing exists all things can and do exist. 

Every thing within the fundamental is fundamentally exactly the same, completely different, or maybe something in between, I don’t know. 

I believe if it was even possible to have something in between it would require something more fundamental than Xistance, or it might just be impossible?

In order for there to be every amount within the fundamental, every thing cannot be fundamentally exactly the same. 

If every thing was fundamentally exactly the same, there would only be one thing, and one is only one amount, one is not every amount, and we need every amount within the fundamental.

Thus within the fundamental every thing cannot all be fundamentally exactly the same and must all be fundamentally completely different. 

(Technically if one is the only amount that can exist one would be every amount and all things would be fundamentally the same because there is only one.)

This allows any amount of things to exist within the fundamental. 

(Amounts are pretty fundamental too. They might be the second most fundamental thing. And then things might be the third.)

Just like amounts where every amount is fundamentally different, every thing is also fundamentally different. 

Nothing makes any aspect of the fundamental any different from another. So every aspect of the fundamental must have every amount.

So I believe within each part of the fundamental you have every amount of every amount of things. 

I believe that this would mean every amount exists within the fundamental. 

I believe that the only way that a thing can exist is within an amount, and if a thing exists within every amount then it exists in every way.

So everything exists in every way within the fundamental.

So nothing can exist in any way outside of the fundamental. 

The reason the fundamental can’t be split every amount of times is, first because amounts are not more fundamental than Xistance which would be required, second because there would have to be more than just Xistance within the fundamental.

What fundamentally requires the existence of all amounts?

It must be Xistance. 

Possibly the existence of Xistance could require the existence of all amounts. 

I do believe that I can use the undeniability of our own existence in these fundamental arguments. We can’t deny our own existence as this denial proves our own existence. So we can prove the existence of at least one thing. 

If one thing exists then an amount has to exist. If this amount is the only amount that can exist, then every amount exists. If this amount is not the only amount that can exist, there can’t fundamentally be anything that makes this amount that exists different, so every amount exists.

Our existence proves the existence of an amount and thus all amounts exist. 

I believe the existence of all amounts was required for our existence. So I think there would have to be something more fundamental than our existence that proves the existence of every amount. I currently believe that the only other thing that is more fundamental that can prove the existence of every amount is Xistance. So I believe some part of Xistance requires every amount to exist.

How Can this be false?

1. If there is something more fundamental than Xistance.

2. If nothing exists. If our own existence is deniable (and all other things and amounts) and Xistance by itself doesn’t or can’t prove or require the existence of an amount. If nothing exists and existence is impossible, then it is impossible for Xistance to exist or not exist and thus it would be neither and nothing would exist.

I think these are the only ways for this theory to be wrong. Our existence (along with the existence or nonexistence of literally everything and anything else) disproves the second one. 

In order for there not to be things, you can’t exist, and you can’t deny your own existence.

In order for everything not to exist amount’s can’t exist, your undeniable existence exists and thus requires an amount to exist. So because you exist an amount exists which requires all amounts to exist, and because you exist a thing exists which requires all things to exist. 

Our existence makes it so the only thing that can prove this wrong is something existing that is more fundamental than Xistance.

Which is possible. 

It is something that can’t be proven, Can’t be disproven, and can’t have any information collected on it.

So I believe that argument XFund can never be proven wrong, but at the same time it also can never be proven right as there is always a chance it could be wrong.

There is a 50% chance that argument XFund is correct and Xistance is the fundamental.

There is a 50% chance that argument XFund is incorrect and Xistance is not the fundamental.

(I do not believe either of these is the case, I view them both as equal possibilities. It is much easier to argue XFund. It seems like it is going to be easier to gather information on XFund and the way in which it works than other Visttis.)

What's within XFund?

Well Xistance is the most fundamental, as it is the fundamental.

The second most fundamental is amounts AKA Numbers.

The Third most fundamental is things.

I believe numbers are more fundamental than things but they might be equally fundamental. 

I believe the amount of verses would be made.

First every thing has to be within Is, Is Not, and Both.

Then a verse for every single combination that everything can be in within these three. 

Then there is every amount of every one of these verses. 

Every possible thing exists within every one of these verses, and Is, Is Not, or Both. 

Maybe like the verses where everything Is, everything Is Not, and everything is Both, are like 3 in the same. Like they might 3 verses conjoined into one. 

But then again nothing makes these verses special, so they arn’t going to be doing something none of the other verses arn’t doing. 

Possible everything outside of a verse is outside of the fundamental, maybe things can fundamentally only be within verses.

Nothing fundamentally says that a verse where everything Is can’t be. If there was that would make it special. 

If those three need to be in a group of 3 then every verse needs to be in a group of three. 

Possibly every combination has a group of three. Every combination is made up of three possible elements, Is, Is Not, and Both. Possibly the three elements that make up the combination is a different one of the three elements within each of the three that make up the combination. 

The three verses that are exclusively one element might end up contradicting itself. So if the three verses that were exclusively one of the elements couldn’t exist on their own, then every verse can’t exist on their own. 

And I believe that they could exist in these groups of three if this was necessary.

There might be other verses that contradict themselves as well and these groups might be necessary for these contradictory verses to exist. 

As the contradictory verses have to exist. 

And if they existed on their own they seemingly might contradict themselves and not be able to exist. 

But something fundamental has to create these groups. I don’t know if there is anything fundamental that would put the combinations together in a group. 

If this is the only way that these things could exist then there would be something fundamental putting them into these groups, as they have to exist. No verse could exist if it was not in a group with its combination.

If a verse cannot exist on its own, And the verse must exist, It must exist with another verse. 

But nothing makes any verse special in any way. All verses are completely equal. There would have to be some fundamental reason for these verses to not exist with every verse, and I am not sure that fundamental reason (is there) exists. (This would I believe basically make the amount of verses one, but at the same time I believe this would also be the only way it would work, so one would be every amount of verses.)

So possibly:

Because one verse cannot exist on its own then every verse exists with every verse. 

This would not be the case:

If every verse could exist on its own. 

If every verse existing with every verse would prevent every amount of every amount of things from existing within the fundamental.

If something more fundamental than Xistance made groupings and not one big group. (I guess I don’t need to bring this one up any more as we are hypothetically within XFund which doesn’t have that.)

So either all verses can exist on their own, every verse exists with every verse, or the previous prevents every amount of every amount of things from existing within the fundamental and thus different grouping would be made that allow every amount of every amount of things to exist within the fundamental. 

I don’t know or know if you can know which one of these is true. 

I think you can disprove every verse being able to exist on its own. I do believe there are plenty of verses with directly contradictory information within them. For example I believe the Verse where everything is within the Is, “nothing” is within the Is and “every thing” is within the Is. I don’t think that these can both exist within the Is at the same time in one verse. 

Does there even need to be multiple verses? 

If every verse exists within every verse then there is really only one verse. But I believe the only amount of verses that there could then be is one verse. And thus every amount of verses existed. Or there could be every amount of these verses. 

So this new verse, what is it like?

Every combination exists within it. Every amount of Every amount of things exists in every way within it. 

It may be the thing in which the fundamental of Xistance is within, or there may be every amount of them. 

I believe that there only has to be every amount of every amount of things within the fundamental. I don’t think there needs to be every amount of every amount of every amount of things.

Or maybe there could be every amount of itself within itself. If nothing can exist outside of everything then I don’t think anything could exist outside of this, as I believe this is everything. 

I don’t think there is a way to have anything above everything. I think this is impossible.

So if this verse has everything within it then everything outside of it is impossible. 

Is every amount of every amount of things. = every amount of everything in every way?

Every amount of things I believe does.

Does every amount of things = every thing?

I believe the greatest amount of things I believe has to include everything. 

If the greatest amount of thins didn’t include everything it wouldn’t be the greatest amount of things.

And anything higher than the highest amount of things can’t exist. 

So I believe the highest amount of things has to be everything, or everything is impossible.

And I believe that the only way that anything can exist is within one of the three fundamental ways. 

And every amount of every amount of things applies to all of them so I believe in every way is included within the statement. 

 {Redacted}

Within this verse it is constantly within every every combination. I believe everything is always everything in every way, every amount of times. 

I believe this is the true maximum. 

But somehow within this maximum this universe exists. And of course it does if it didn’t everything wouldn’t be always. Our universe is part of everything and if our universe didn’t exist in the exact way that it does, then everything would not exist. Our universe, in exactly the way it is, is required to be within the verse.

How can this be false?

There are multiple possible verses.

Somehow this does not contain every amount of every possible amount of every possible amount of things. And provide this to all three ways of existence.

There has to be every possible amount of verses.

What’s going on within this verse? 

Every amount of every thing exists. Each one of these things simultaneously exists as each of the three. I believe It all has to be in one location (assuming that existing in one location is every amount of locations it can be in.) It is in the location. I don’t know if location even exists at this fundamental level. If this verse is where Xistance is, no location could exist outside of it. 

{If} There isn’t no location where would it be? I belive if something does not have a location it might not exist anywhere. And if something can’t exist somewhere it might not be able to exist. 

But at this fundamental level,l do “somewhere” and “nowhere” really mean anything? I don’t think location matters or even exists at this fundamental level. I don’t think existence can require location because if it did it would make it more fundamental than Xistance. And that can’t be. And if existence does not require location then it just doesn't exist at this level. Xistance would have to exist before any location to exist. And if Xistance required a location it would not be able to attain one and thus would not exist(neither). It would be impossible with location at this level. 

THINGS ABOUT THINGS. (facts about facts) It seems like they all would have to exist as well.

Unless they are somehow more than everything, but that doesn't make too much sense.

What would a fact about a fact be? It might be that a fact about a fact.

Maybe not.

It seems that a Fact about a Thing would only be saying which element it was in. Also a fact about a thing could not just be about one thing it would have to be about every thing. So they might not exist. Or they might exist and not matter. They might be what makes everything but that might also just be everything. Maybe there is more thought that I could put to this but 

I don’t think that they effect the model in any way.

What about the truth that says one thing is equal to another???????

Is everything always every amount of things? 

Everything is always everything? 

Are there multiple things?

Or maybe things cannot be compared?  {Redacted} 

As if something can be compared to another it has to be able to be compared to everything else in the same way. 

It seems like the only qualities that every thing could have is which element it is a part of. There may be no way to distinguish between two things in order to compare them. Maybe there is literally nothing that can be compared about them (compare). I believe that every thing is different yet every thing is completely equal.

I think this fundamental difference might be required as it may be necessary for everything to exist.

I think for everything to exist every thing has to be both fundamentally the same and fundamentally different from every other thing.

Because if a thing has the ability to be different it will be different, and if it has the ability to be the same it will be the same. 

So every thing is completely different from and exactly the same as everything else. 

Truth about one thing being unequal to another????  I believe that all of this truth exists but it applies from everything to everything completely equally so they are all back to being equal. And they never could be unequal.

What about truth about limited truth or limited amounts????

I think this would require that there always be every amount of amounts and always be every amount of things.

OOps,   Truth = False

What at an absolute fundamental level makes truth and Falsehood different?

They might also be both completely different and exactly the same. 

As they have to be different in order for everything to exist, but nothing fundamentally makes them any different.

Existence = non existence. 

{9/12/2019

Happy and Hurt eyes

They were nerver wanting me n/ever, animal}

9/12/19

There is a way of proving there is something more fundamental than Xistance. 

This is by somehow proving.

Nothing fundementally says truth and falsehood have to always be completly different.

So Both.

If everything is always both within Is and Is Not, then would than mean Both ain’t really nessisary. Or would’t that make both the exact same as what they are. 

Well in combinations would both not be necessary. 

If Both is nessisary would then Neither also be nessisary? 

Everything is always both within the verse, but within the combinations would it be nessisary? 

I don’t see any fundamental Reason that within the combinations things cannot be within one or Both. 

I think the only big rule or restriction is that the things that are outside of Xistance arn’t. And Im pretty sure everything, every situation, that can be conceived of within our brain.

Xistance Isn’t Real?????

Xistance Doesn’t Exist?????

True Nothing is something that could Rival Xistances Fundamentality. 

Im Pretty Sure Xistance = somthing

But the thing is. YOU CAN’T DENY EXISTENCE, YOU EXIST. 

Can the nonExistance of Xistance be a thing? 

Also Can the Existance of Xistance be a thing? 

Because if either of these have to be a thing they would both have to be both true and false. 

Maybe Xistance both does and does not exist.

But No thing can put Xistance anywhere outside of Xistance. 

But these two things (do) I believe make Xistance impossible, and thus I believe Xistance couldn’t be within Xistance. 

So everything has to be Both and Neither, as I believe they may be equal. 

Ive just been saying that the thing more fundamental than Xistance has to Neither exist nor Not exist. 

Xistance is being within the Is, Not Is, or Both

Neither is being within Both the Not Is, and the Not Not Is. 

(Not Not Is is a double negative making it Is.)

Which I think might make them equal.

Is this Right? Cuz I might be misinterpreting the neither. 

The Neither must be that which can’t exist within both the Is and Is Not. Maybe. 

I’m not sure if that is Neither that might be something else. 

That’s not something that doesn’t exist within the Is or Is Not, that is something that can’t exist within the Is or Is Not. 

(Could dingers cat prove everything Is and Is Not all at once. It works with the unknown. So maybe.)

So I think the Neither is around and is the same as the both. 

NO.

The Neither is only equal to both if the only thing other than the Is is the Is Not. 

So where Xistance is the fundamental. 

If Xistance is not the fundamental then the neither is equal to that. 

But in XFund is the Neither really equal to Both or is it just within the impossible?

Possibly within this scenario the only thing that is not Xistance is the absence of Xistance. True nothing, the impossible. 

Is Neither one of the elements of Xistence?

Can Neither be split into 4 parts? Is, Is Not, Both, and Neither. 

I am not sure. 

I believe that if it can it is the fundamental. 

And I believe that If it cannot then it is not the fundamental. 

So within XFund Xistance splits into 4 parts: Is, Is Not, Both, and Neither. 

Nothing still makes any one of these parts special. So if one thing can be within one of these then all things can and do exist within all of them.

Is the neither in this situation more fundamental than Xistance? 

Maybe.

I believe the neither in this situation is true nothing/ the Impossible is the impossible, more fundamental than Xistance.

Could it be equally as Fundamental?

Does what Cannot be require Xistance.

Maybe if nothing can then nothing can’t,  because nothing makes can more or less than cannot. 

And I believe the situation where nothing can nor Can’t is within the impossible. 

We can see now because Xistance can, it always could. 

The situation of nothing being able to can or can’t isn’t more fundamental than Xistance. Because that isn’t the situation. 

No situation / Nothing within the impossible is more fundamental than Xistance because I think they are all situations like this. I think there might just be one situation.

That situation being where Xistance Neither can Nor Can’t.

Nothing makes where Xistance Can, Can’t, and both and more or less than where nothing can, can’t nor both. So if one of them then all of them. 

So I think nothing makes Xistance different from the absence of Xistance so they both are the fundemental. 

Is there a both for this?

If there is not a both for this can there be a both for anything else. 

Is the both of this actually the fundamental?

If the both of this is a thing could this go back endlessly?

I think that if things go back indefinitely it doesn’t really make sense for them to be. 

The fundamental has to include all which is not it. And I think the absence of itself is not it. 

So I think the fundamental has to exist within itself in order for it to be the fundamental.

But in order for the fundamental to be the fundamental there has to be something fundamental that makes it more or less than the absence of itself.

There has to be something that makes the existence of a fundamental more than the absence of a fundamental.

Does there? 

Is there any fundamental reason that they can’t both be. There is nothing more fundamental than the fundamental. Can there be a neither in this situation?

Within the neither of this situation is there the situation where only one exists, or the situation where one is more than the other? Within this neither could there be the situation where the fundamental exists and the situation where one does not?

Or could both?

Neither contains the impossible. 

So wouldn’t the neither contain every amount of situation where there is something more fundamental than Xistance. 

Those situation are all equal to the situation where Xistance is the fundamental.

Is there anything that fundamentally makes Xistance special?

So does everything have the ability to be the fundamental?

(is our conscious Us as the fundamental?)

I think the only thing that could make Xistance fundamentally different from anything else is it fundamentally being the fundamental.

If something other than Xistance being the fundamental be contradictory? As it would have to exist first.

Would it be any more contradictory than Xistance being the fundemental? As it would have to exist first. 

Or is it actually prooving itself as the fundamental?

Either there is a fundemental

There is an incomprehensable

Or there is nothing.

There isn’t nothing!

I EXIST!!!!!!

It is also likely that even with an incomprehensible there is a fundamental. But no guarantee.

Is the fundamental Xistance?

Could the fundamental be ourselves?

I think we would have to exist first. 

Either Xistance is the fundamental.

Or something incomprehensible is the fundamental as it exists outside the concept of existing. 

Can something exist outside the concept of existing? 

I don’t know. Honestly I am not sure if something can. 

It is possible that even incomprehensible things have to exist.

I can’t proove it but I think now it might not be possible as if it did I believe it would have to exist. 

I think as well even everything that is impossible also exists Within the neither. 

We might be equally fundamental to Xistance. 

As if we are we might be fundamental enough to require the existence of a fundamental. 

If we are not then I don’t think there would be anything fundamental enough to require the existence of a fundamental.

And if it applies to us it must apply to everything. 

Everything is as fundamental as existence.

Everything is as fundamental as the fundamental. 

Everything is the fundamental.

?

Everything requires everything else. 

So if one thing is then everything is. 

We are one thing that is.

Therefore everything is.

I don’t know if everything and nothing are opposites. 

Everything includes nothing within it, and nothing does not include everything within it. 

Is the situation now, either everything exists, or somthing impossible, and thus everything exists.

I might actually be able to proove this. 

I don’t know.

So our existence prooves that either:

Everything exists

Random exists (meaning things happen for no reason)

Or there are aspects that are completely incomprehensible to anything that exists.

Would this random require everything to be random, nothing to happen for a reason. 

Possibly.

I don’t know if.

9/14/19: Logic

I think in order for logic to exist logic would first have to exist.

The random.

The logic of “nothing is without reason” I believe would be more fundamental than Xistance/the fundamental itself.

But also this logic’s existence would also be more fundamental than itself. 

So Xistance would still have to be more fundamental than it. 

{(If I could proove that a fundamental can’t exist that would {Redacted})}

Does Xistance have a Requirement that must exist before itself? 

If so than might just make Xistance impossible.

Incomprehensable.

There can’t be any logic used in these arguments.

As I don’t believe any exists at this fundamental level.

So what do we have?

We exist.

Which means something has to require Xistance.

Is it us?

Xistance as the fundamental.

There are prerequisites to there even needing a fundamental.

There does not need to be a fundamental if things can be without reason. 

Making the logic that “things cannot be without reason” more fundamental than and fundamental.

But if this logic existed then it’s existence would be more fundamental than it. 

Making it so that it disproves it’s own existence. 

But without it the fundamental cannot exist.

Making the fundamental impossible.

In this scenario the only possibility is that there are incomprehensable aspects.

But this scenario there are other aspects of logic that are assumed. 

Such as the order in which the fundamentals have to exist, the most fundamental has to be the first thing something less fundamental cannot be required for its existence. The most fundamental thing cannot have anything more fundamental than it. 

No aspect of logic can be the fundamental because their existence would always be more fundamental. And I think if one aspect of logic could be the fundamental all aspects could be the fundamental.

Another aspect of logic that there is is things must exist in order to be. But I don’t know if this one even is a thing. I’m pretty sure “be”ing and all other words are just other words for exist. So this logic would be things must exist in order to exist. Which I am not sure this even works as a piece of logic. If the statement “things don’t have to exist in order to exist” works and we can’t assume that things must exist in order to exist. I honestly don’t know if even that statement works in the absence of all logic. 

I do believe in the absence of all logic 1 would not be required to equal 1. 

So existence does not equal existence. 

So the logic of “equal things being equal” would not exist. 

Does this mean that nothing can be derived from any of this?

I don’t know.

Because something exists. 

It’s hard now to get a grasp. 

But now because nothing makes equal things equal 

Existance would still be a quality that they all have. Actually I don’t know if it would be. 

Just because they exist doesn’t mean they have the quality of existing. 

Equal things are equal. 

Every thing is equal. What makes every thing equal? Its Xistance. It’s ability to exist. 

I am not sure if there is any way around that.

Xistance seemingly is the most fundamental thing. 

But Xistance being the fundamental doesn’t seem to work.

I don’t know if we could exist if Xistance was the fundamental. 

I don’t think the most fundamental thing can be the most fundamental thing. 

So possibly there must be incomprehensible aspect.

Everything that can be conceived of can be a thing I believe. 

Is a thing just an exist?

Without the logic of “A thing is means that a thing is” is Xistnace really the most fundamental thing. 

Does this mean that there cannot be anything fundamental?

But in this situation can we be?

If within this situation it cannot create the situation of us then it is not the situation. 

And I believe prooves that there has to be incomprehensible aspect.

I think incomprehensible aspect is something that is not a thing. 

Is pure random a thing or an incomprehensible?

Because Right now it seems that there is either pure random or incomprehensible aspect.

But also the logic of needing other logic isn’t.

No logic has to be required in order for Xistance to be the fundamental. 

It doesn’t even need to have any requirements. 

The logic surrounding the fundamental.

Xistance just declared itself the fundamental.

I think here everything is back to existing, but this time everything can be the fundamental. 

Everything is everything including existence. 

There is no logic but also you don’t need logic. 

So would the fundamental be pure everything? 

So I believe we are back to where we were. 

Our existence proves either pure everything, incomprehensable aspect, or maybe pure random.

Things more fundamental than Xistance?

What is pure random and is it a third option, or is there only 2 options. 

9/15/19

Would equal things are equal be more fundamental than Xistance? 

Well I believe once this exists Xistance would go back and be more fundamental than it. 

But it has to exist before Xistance.

But also this is following the logic that something cannot exist if the requirements for existence are not present. 

Xistance always seems to end up as the most fundamental. 

Well I think it always ends up being the fundamental when equal things are equal. 

If there was only Xistance. If Xistance was the only thing possible, it doesn’t seem like it would create our situation. Unless it was an incomprehensible and contained all things within it. But this would make Xistance not a thing. But we are trying to find a situation where within things, with no incomprehensible aspect, is possible.

If only Xistance was possible. As it was the only thing it can’t contain other things within it, because it is the only possible thing. And so it could not create our situation.

(“our situation” is our undeniable reality.)

If the fundamental was everything. No one thing was the fundamental, but everything as a collection was the fundamental. Then it could create our situation. 

If one thing was any more fundamental than another there would have to be something that makes it fundamentally different from every other thing. Just within things, I don’t think there is anything that can make one more fundamental.

As I don’t think anything has any fundamental meaning. All things I believe are all exactly the same and completely different at the same time. Including even “existence” it’s exactly the same and completely different from everything else. 

The only way Is if one thing was the only thing that could exist. 

And this is not the case because it would not create our situation. 

Our situation may be able to be created if we are an incomprehensible but this is not the same situation. 

But us as the only thing, I’m not sure if our situation can one thing. And if it can I don’t know if it can be the only situation.

Maybe it can. I don’t know if there is any way of disproving or prooving that our situation is the only possible thing. It wouldn’t need a reason as that logic doesn’t exist. It isn’t possible. We have no way of prooving any other situation from within ours, as it could just be a part of ours. We are the only existence that we can proove. And that existence wouldn’t be another thing because I believe it only applies to us and thus would just be a part of us ( {Redacted}). Everything that we can conceive of could be another thing or just part of our thing. 

So maybe there are now 4 possibilities of the Nature of the Fundamental:

Everything is the fundamental.

Our situation is the only thing possible. 

Incomprehensible Aspect.

 Pure random. (Maybe.)

Everything being the fundamental. I believe also means every amount of things. I believe this is what it means. 

Wait, would then be every amount be more fundamental than everything?

This amount seems like it would be more fundamental than “everything.

This amount being 1 would create our situation, or the situation where we are the only possible thing. 

Our situation also requires a minimum of this amount being 1.

Could this amount be anything less than the maximum without reason?

Could a situation with no maximum exist? 

I don’t know if an amount could exist if there was no maximum amount. 

There seems to being a minimum. That of 0. No.

I believe our existence prooves that the minimum is one. 

So I don’t know if the minimum of 0 can actually exist.

I believe our existence disprooves the possibility of 0. 

If there is one amount.

(Does the non existance of the minimum proove incomprehensable aspect? Maybe

Or does our existance mean that that is not required? maybe.)

In the absence of all logic I don’t believe there is required to be a maximum. 

But because one amount exists, There has to be an amount that exists. 

Does this amount need a reason for being the amount that exists? I don’t think so. 

This amount is required to exist by our existence. (“23”-T) 

This amount is required to be at least 1 by our existence. 

If our existence prooves the existence of the amount 1 then this is the amount or multiple amounts exist. If our existence does not proove the existence of 1 then there may only be one amount. 

What assigns things meaning? Or would the -- amount of things all hold the -- amount of meanings? -- being the amount. 

So maybe there are now 3 possibilities of the Nature of the Fundamental.

The amount. (With a minimum of 1)

Incomprehensible aspect.

Maybe pure random.

I don’t know about pure random. I haven't really thought about it yet. In order for it not to be incomprehensible aspect it has to be a thing. 

And in order for it to be a possibility of the Nature of the Fundamental it has to be the fundamental. 

And I believe if pure random was the fundamental on its own it would be the only thing possible. And there is nothing giving it meaning. 

Does pure random need a meaning?

As if it was the fundamental there would have to be something more fundamental than itself that gives it it’s meaning. 

Or does it not need that in the absence of logic. I don’t think it does. So I believe it can give itself it’s own meaning. 

And I don’t know if pure random declares itself the fundamental there are any rules attached. 

Nothing gives any amount it’s meaning.

If anything is the fundamental it is not equal to everything else. 

And in the absence of logic anything can make anything including itself more or less than anything else. 

But also being more or less has no meaning. 

And also meaning has no meaning. 

All we know is that there is one thing. 

I don’t think there is any way of knowing of anything more fundamental than this thing. 

Is the fundamental either us or incomprehensible aspect? 

There first has to be things or their first has to be not things?

If something is not a thing is it an incomprehensible aspect?

Can we only comprehend things?

Possibly.

Would the act of comprehending something that is not a thing make it a thing?

In the absence of logic?

We are a thing, I believe that is something from outside our thing entered our thing it would become part of our thing. 

I don’t think from within our thing we can ever proove anything outside of our thing. 

Nothing other than ourselves can be comprehensive in the way that we cannot comprehend it as something outside of us. As everything that we comprehend is part of us. 

So either we are the only possible thing that can exist or there is incomprehensible aspect.

In order for something else to exist I believe there must be incomprehensible aspect.

In order for the things around us to not be us there must be incomprehensible aspect.

There is no way to comprehend anything other than us as everything we comprehend is part of us. 

We are the only proovable thing, and thus nothing other than us can ever be provable. 

The way in which another thing could be cannot be comprehended by us, and I believe this comprehension would make that thing part of us. 

9/16/19

I believe any argument for anything other than yourself must be made using no logic. 

I am not saying that we are the only thing. But it is possible.

I am saying that there is no way of knowing whether we are the only thing, as there is no way of prooving anything other than ourselves, as we cannot use any logic in the argument to proove another's existence, and I don’t believe an argument can be made without logic.

So we can never know if we are the only thing or if there are other things. 

I don’t know if I can go any more fundamental than this. 

And thus I believe that this is the Nature of the Fundamental.

Can we actually proove our own existence in the absence of logic?

Our existence is one thing and if this thing was not possible then how would we(Be) be. We are. This that we experience would not be possible if we wern’t. 

If this wasn’t possible then I don’t believe we would be experiencing it. 

I think even in the absence of all logic we would still be. 

What does our “existence” proove?

Actually I think in the absence of all logic I don’t think our “existance” can proove anything. 

I don’t think it can even proove the existence of at least one thing. 

Can we proove the existence of ourselves in the absence of all logic?

Maybe it can disprove that we arn’t. 

There is no situation where I am not. 

Our existance can’t proove anything, and it doesn’t have to proove anything. 

You cannot conceive of an argument that disproves you.

The disproval of you is incomprehensible. 

Possibly every thing is comprehensible. If something is not a thing then it is not comprehensible. Maybe but I think that is an argument using logic.

Wouldn’t the disapproval of us have to be something outside of us. There cannot be 2 things within one. Right? 

The disproval of us would have to be us.

If this was the case there would not be an us. And never was.

Right now it is impossible that I am not. 

And thus I believe that the disapproval of me is not a part of me. 

How could there be a disapproval of something that isn’t? 

There can only be a disproval of things that are. This is another logic argument. 

I think in order to disprove my self there would have to be logic disprooving it. And this logic is not part of me? Also this logic seems to have to go back infinitely. But this doesn’t mean anything any more?

This has to disprove itself, or the disproval is not this. 

This does not disprove itself.

All arguments against this are using logic that don’t nessisarily exist.