Grand Unifying Theory of Everything (part 1)

This is the first part of an essay I am trying to write in which I use a logical thought process to try and reach objective conclusions about the nature of the Universe's existence. You should find this extract interesting (note that I have a lot more to say). Please read and let me know what you think. I would appreciate your help very much. Please feel free to email me if you want to.







Given that the Universe exists within space, it seems appropriate that an endeavour to better understand the Universe should start by establishing the limits of how space could exist. In order to do this, one could consider what it is that would result from ?'Zero' existence, for 'Zero' is an absolute in itself.

?'Zero' is a concept that is used to denote the existence of ?'nothing'. Thus, if ?'Zero' were to exist in space, the result would be that space would have nothing existing within it. Space would be totally empty, and totally empty space must, therefore, be a limit of how space could exist. It seems reasonable to refer to this manifestation of ?'Zero' as ?'The Nothing'.

In that ?'Zero' implies the existence of nothing, the fact that we exist is proof enough that ?'Zero' does not exist. It also implies that it must be possible for space to not have ?'nothing' existing within it. In other words, it must be possible for ?'something' to exist within space, ?'something' not being ?'nothing'. This is rather obvious, since to say that ?'nothing' exists implies that ?'something' does not exist. Likewise, to say that space is empty implies that it is empty of something. ?'Nothing' is the absence of something.

Interestingly, what this means is that ?'nothing' and ?'something' are actually equal and opposite, for just as ?'nothing' is the absence of something, ?'something' must be the absence of nothing. Thus, if space were to be entirely full of ?'something', this would, in fact, be another manifestation of ?'Zero', equal and opposite to ?'The Nothing'. It seems appropriate that this manifestation of ?'Zero' be referred to as ?'The Something', it being another limit of how space could exist.

In light of this, the general assumption that ?'Zero' only has one manifestation is actually incorrect. ?'Zero' has two equal and opposite manifestations: ?'The Nothing' and ?'The Something'. One might consider ?'The Nothing' as if it were ?'-0' and ?'The Something' as if it were ?'+0'.

In that ?'The Nothing' and ?'The Something' are both manifestations of ?'Zero', it follows that the existence of one would automatically imply that the other exists at the same time.

This said, the concepts of ?'The Nothing' and ?'The Something' must, therefore, be logical impossibilities, for each can only exist without the existence of the other.

With ?'The Nothing' and ?'The Something' existing at the same time, ?'Zero' existence would actually be a state where ?'nothing' and ?'something' exist within the same space. Thus, the true result of ?'Zero' existence would be a state that could be referred to as ?'The Nothing-Something'.

Having said this, it would be wholly incorrect to say that ?'The Nothing-Something' is a manifestation of ?'Zero', for it is not ?'nothing' or ?'something'. In truth, ?'The Nothing-Something' is ?'everything', ?'everything' being ?'nothing' and ?'something'. For this reason, ?'The Nothing-Something' is not ?'Zero' but ?'One and All' (1 and infinity). It is ?'All' and ?'All' is ?'One'. It is the absolute.

In light of this, it follows that the concept of ?'Zero' is itself a logical impossibility, since the very requirements for its existence result in something that cannot be described as ?'Zero'. ?'Zero' is ?'One and All' and ?'One and All' is not ?'Zero'.

Now, if one refers back to the definitions of ?'nothing' and ?'something', one can see that if ?'nothing' were to not exist, then ?'something' would, and if ?'something' were to not exist, then ?'nothing' would. What this means is that it would be impossible for neither ?'nothing' nor ?'something' to exist, thus implying that it would be impossible for ?'The Nothing-Something' not to exist.

This implies that ?'The Nothing-Something' must exist and that the Universe is ?'The Nothing-Something'.

Seeing as this is must be the case, the whole concept of the Universe having had a ?'beginning' is a complete misunderstanding, because it implies that there was a time when ?'The Nothing-Something' did not exist. Since it would be impossible for ?'The Nothing-Something' to not exist, the Universe could not have had a beginning or ever have an end. It simply is, has been, and always will be.