I live in emptiness, for this is the world. All around me is empty space, empty time; this is where I, among all others, things and people, live. All of us live in emptiness. And all of those that as yet do not exist, when they arrive, will also live in emptiness. But how are we all supported in this emptiness? Why don't we fall, forever and ever? But there is no place to fall, since everything is emptiness. There is no place anywhere, no place. There are only things in the emptiness, there is no place in space or time. So it seems that the best we can do is say; we are relative to each other. But if we are in nothingness, then between us there is nothingness; so what do we mean by "relative to each other?" How does one know the other is there? And even if he does, how does he determine how far or how long? In fact, in the very concept of nothingness is a limited and future changing concept; everything is haunted.

Such simple questions and yet we have no answers. Twenty-five hundred years ago, Parmenides asked the questions: They still haven't been answered. Two hundred and fifty years ago Hume asked the questions: They still haven't been answered. Why not? Where are the answers? The questions indeed are good questions. I think that that answers are right here. It is just that we assume the world is such a way that the answers are impossible. Then why do we assume it that way? We assume it that way because it works so well, so very splendidly. Answers to profound questions often require the giving up of practicality, common sense, things that work. And yet, in the last analysis, not only is nothing given up, but what does work so splendidly is simply deepened beyond recognition in its profundity .

June 24, 1998

It is getting clearer how to separate the reality, the classical reality that arises when we attempt to define or discover the more basic or general reality which is the source of the classical reality , which comes into existence only during the above attempts, that is, one of measurement. There has been a tremendous confusion in mistaking classical reality for basic reality. Classical reality is unchanging and absolutely necessary, in fact, the only way we have of discovering the more general and basic reality, that which is subject to an ever deeper discovery. There was never a serious problem until first, relativity, and then more seriously, quantum mechanics, was discovered. It is now increasingly clearer that basic reality is a reality of "nothingness," one of increasing depth in understanding the meaning of nothingness, in removing the intrusion of classical concepts in our understanding and being free to open up to the amazing wonder of nothingness.

For the theory of relativity, we have a collection of + and – c’s. This is an unordered collection, although we as yet do not have the concept ordered-unordered. At best we can say that we have a non-denumerable collection of a binary or two-valued set. Once we say that it is non-denumerable, we have a non-zero measure. That is, a distance can be defined on it. This distance function is a function only of the the end-points, simply being the magnitude of the difference between them. It says absolutely nothing about what is in between these endpoints. We do say, however, that sub-distances [or sub-intervals] exist or can be formed from the interval. A [proper] sub-interval is defined simply as an interval whose distance is less than that of the interval. Thus, if the left-hand points of a series of sub-intervals are all identical, then the right-handed points are ordered. It is in this fashion that order is established within the interval. These points are then said to be the points of the interval. Thus, if a determination, measurement is made on a sub-interval of the interval, we may say that that endpoint of the sub-interval is a point of the interval also. But if the sub-interval is removed [say, a measuring rod] then that point of the interval is also removed, no longer exists. It is in this sense then that neither space nor time, a continuous set of ordered reals, the basis of classical Newtonian physics, does not exist. The fact that they do exist, or appear to exist, in between measurements, at least prior to quantum mechanics, requires explanation. The fact that they cannot exist in quantum mechanics, and therefore cannot exist in any physics, requires justification.

Suppose now that we define a sequence of sub-intervals, and thus a sequence of points on this interval such that there is a given fraction, p, of + c’s and a given fraction of – c’s [of course, q = 1 – p ], and that as the size of the sub-interval approaches zero, the number of sequence terms approaches infinity. Furthermore, suppose that p approaches a limit, v~. We then define this limit as a velocity . If now we can define velocities over a denumerable subset of any sub-interval of the interval we started with, then it is possible to find to find the velocities as an analytic function of all the points, a non-denumerable infinity, in that sub-interval.

August 13, 1998

It could be that at every instant of imaginary time there is a constantly expanding nonspace, a constant mitosis of every eleemtn of the nonspace into two elements. And if a measurement is made, no matter how complicated, then this is a selection of the nonspace as another nonspace and it will devekop in its own deterministic way, time starting up once again. Whether or not an object is present time and its accompanying nonspace, expanding is always there.

Mass can arise naturally without any external activity, internally from the very nature of an unspecified mass nonspace. In fact, the whole spectrum of masses might arise this way; furthermore the existence of one mass in forward time might clone all other masses of the same value also in formward time

.October 17, 1998

Given a presence. A presence is defined as an externality and an internality. In its externality it is defined as identical to all other presences; in its internality it is defined as unique. However, a presence is always not a presence, not itself since there is no reason why there should be a presence, anything. Thus, a presence is its own negation, a negation of itself. while being itself. Thus, there are neither presences nor non-presences; there is only both as one, which means the potential to be either. Such a potential becomes an actuality through a measurement, where a measurement, being the transformation of the potential into the actuality means the transformation of the source, the basis of our reality into our reality; that is, the source of our reality is the source of presences and the source of presences is both the presence and non-presence, the unity of both (whatever "unity" means). The measurement, which requires itself a presence, is then the identification of a given presence. which is the measuring object, with , through the act of measurement, a trasnformed presence- non-presence into a presence.

A presence is just a presence. A non-presence is not just a non-presence since that would make it like a presence. No, a non-presence is that which a presence is not. Since it must be defined in terms of a presence, it must then be the potentiality of presence. This immediately means that it is not presence but it defined in terms of , or by presence. But since all there is is presence, then non-presence must be further defined so that although it is defined in terms of presence it is not presence, neither comparable nor contrastable to presence. However, if non-presence is defined in terms of presence then both must be identical; and if they are distinct, each unique, then they are not expressible in terms of each other. Thus, they being identical must imply that they are unique. This must mean that if a presence is a presence, it is one; that is, it is a single. This then must mean that a non-presence, which is one, is one in a different way; that different way then must be that it is not only one in its way, but many in the ways of presences, of ones. But since non-presences are defined in terms of presences, it must mean that many in the ways of presences means one in each of the ways a presence is a one. Thus, if the ways of a presence is position, then each of the ways of a presence is a value of postion; the identity then of a non-presence must be sin the identity of a position. But since the non-presence, although in this way definable in terms of of by a presence, it is not a presence. Therefore, a non-presence, although a one in its unique way is not a one in being or having a position; it therefore must be or have many positions when defined by a presence and having no positions when not defined by a presence. By being defined means being measured, being identified. Thus, a non-presence is the potentiality of being a presence and presence is the actuality of non-presence. We now explain specifically this relationship and thus the very meaning of relationship, which can only be done in a specific context.

We say that the kind of presences we are concerned with here are those that have a specific value of something, like position. But this by itself will get us nowhere since it is only one-- and yet this oneness is required. Therefore, we institute the concept of the limit, where the limit is the limit of an interval as the interval goes to zero. The latter means that the number or value zero, although not an element of the set of values or points of the interval is not separable from the set itself. That is, that any set of which zero is an element also contains an infinity of elements of the set of points or values of the interval. Although an infinity of points itself does not constitute an interval the limit point is the limit point of an interval in our application, although it is not otherwise necessarily true. We now say that the point, the position, is a position or point of space, but it is not the limit of a space interval, but rather the limit of what I call all possible intervals of nonspace. We now specify what this means.