Λ, lambda beyond the EDWs (including the EW0/Hypernothing)

(2^nd November, 2024)

Obviously, in 200 years (probabilistic speaking), my EDWs perspective would be replace by another approach. However, some truths will remain forever truths. (see my previous works) The question is what else could appear in 200 years? The problem is that I predicted a new paradigm of thinking (not a new theory as above) after 2000 years… not to confuse, let say 1800 years. Nevertheless, here, I will try to indicate some steps for this new paradigm of thinking about Λ (lambda) which it would not be against my EDWs, but something beyond the EDWs, i.e., the EDWs would be included in Λ.

In my previous works, I have written few ideas about the Λ, i.e., about “something” which could be beyond the EDWs (WE0 included). There were other philosophers who had certain thoughts on the same direction, but nobody thought about the EDWs until me. Therefore, being already in the EDWs perspective, I hope I can introduce certain ideas about Λ. I emphasize that Λ is something different than EW0/nothing, infinite or God (it could not even exist). So, if we eliminate all these possibilities from our thinking, what else could we think about Λ which it would be beyond EW0? We know that EW0 is not about Big Bang, but about the first nothing.

When we talk about Λ, I have to write something beyond is/existence-nothing. Therefore, I created “noexis”, that is I put together no (from no-thing), ex (from ex-istence) and is (from is). So, Λ noexis. Great, I have a statement about Λ. But what is noexis? Is something beyond “is”, “existence”, “nothing”! The reader has to become habituated about thinking noexis when I refer to Λ. The reader would claim, there is nothing beyond nothing, existence, is, but I recall the EDWs versus the universe/world. Everybody had been working within the wrong paradigm of thinking, the universe/world, and this paradigm of thinking has been the largest paradigm changed by somebody (me, in this case) during the history of human thinking. Nevertheless, now I have to go beyond EDWs (the EW0 included). That is, “Λ noexis”.

What does it mean noexis would be beyond nothing, existence, is? Obviously, nobody can even think about Λ, about noexis, but nobody had thought the EDWs before me! So, I will try to write something about Λ and noexis. Apparently, I cannot even think Λ since I am, my body exists, when I die, I will be nothing, i.e., the I or my live will disappear. But what does it mean my life disappears when I die? My body will not disappear when I die, it will become decomposed in different macro-parts (my bones will be quite long time, if there would not be burned), my skin, blood, cells will disappear very soon and disappear means disintegration in matter (in the end certain microparticles and the corresponding electromagnetic waves). The principle of energy conservation indicates nothing disappears, only change. Life-EW (immaterial EW) just disappears. According to my Hyperverse, before the EW1-n, it was EW0, i.e., nothing, better, Hypernothing. (see my previous works) As we already know, in order to write something about Λ, it is not to go beyond myself, my mind, to go beyond “internal me” (wrong notion since spacetime does not exist, and there is no extension for the I as it is for the body (there is internal and external to the body). If it is meaningless to talk about any ontology and non-ontology (nothing), then Λ noexis. Again noexis is beyond nothing, existence, is. What is noexis? Can I say nothing else than it is beyond nothing, existence, is?

Λ has to be something mysterious, something that we cannot have any idea since our mode of thinking is compressed by certain limits which have been established during millennium, including my EDWs perspective. I cannot even say that Λ is/exist or is not/does not exist. Anyway, Λ has to be something beyond my EDWs, beyond the EW0, i.e., beyond the hyperontology of the Hypernothing. It is not even a different ontology, it is not another kind of ontology, it is not nothing, but it is not something we cannot even think. Otherwise, why do I need to write this chapter? What can I write about Λ if there is something beyond is/exist and is not/does not exist? What can be something beyond nothing-existence if it is not a new ontology like EDW? Already, when I wrote “something beyond…” something is a wrong notion. Nothing is a wrong notion when we talk about Λ. I do not talk about an EDW then EW0 or WE1-n or any EW, I write about Λ. I will try to introduce certain suggestions about Λ. (I do not use “the” before Λ, it would be meaningless…) Obviously, we have to change completely our language, my language (i.e., the language of EDWs perspective), more exactly, I have to go beyond my own language referring to the EDWs. Maybe all the ideas would be negations of all my previous ideas… all the main concepts would be against my main concepts, but anyway, I need to introduce these rules, notions and whatever there would be…

The reader would be shocked by my attempt… but this is the only way to grasp Λ, to suggest “something” about Λ. I know for sure, Λ has to be something beyond is/exist and is not/does not exist, beyond the EW0 and the EDWs. Λ has to be something totally different than a human mind (an EW), infinity or God since the last two concepts do not refer to any real entity. But even if infinity and God would be, Λ were something beyond these two entities (infinity and God). More exactly, it would be quite wrong to characterize Λ as being something infinite or a kind of new God. It would be totally meaningless because both notions have been elaborated within our human thinking. Nevertheless, the human thinking is in relationship to existence/is (any kind of existence, material and immaterial, so mind is included here) and nothing (I exclude infinite and God). We have to go beyond immaterialism-materialism distinction, i.e., we have to go beyond the human mind and any kind of existence (field, micro, macro, dark, etc.). It means that continuity-discontinuity, static-in motion, one-multiple, epistemology-ontology, hyperontology, and any kind of dual concepts or any concept would be wrong in characterizing Λ. Then do I need to stop writing something about Λ? Of course, no… I want to give some suggestions about Λ. I believe, I will not be able to write certain principles, rules, postulates about Λ, but I hope I can introduce certain ideas about Λ.

Is Λ an universe, world, EW? No, it is not since Λ is something totally different than nothing and any EW. Everybody feels that we are already at the limits of human thinking. My EDWs perspective have passed these limits, but regarding Λ, I need to go beyond EDWs, beyond anything we can even think. What a difficult job… but this is Λ. Even to ask what was before Λ or what was after Λ it would be meaningless. It seems that I can write nothing about Λ… but even this statement is wrong. Then, do I need to stop writing about Λ? No, I will not stop writing about Λ since Λ is the greatest word beyond the human thinking. This is the status of Λ: beyond any human word, statement, rule, principle, ontology, epistemology, etc. etc. “What is Λ?” is a wrong question. I do not deal here with “philosophy of language” (masturbation or philosophical absurdities!) I deal here with Λ beyond EW0/EDWs. At least, following somehow Descartes, I can say something about Λ: Λ beyond EW0/EDWs. The reader has to notice I did not write Λ is beyond EW0 since “is” would be quite a wrong word. We know already, Λ is beyond is, existence, nothing. I know, Λ is beyond our limits of thinking, but I have to write something about Λ even if I do not have any clue about Λ. I had some clues in discovering the EDWs, thinking and writing about the EW0 and the EDWs. These clues were unsolved philosophical and scientific great problems like the mind-brain problem, the self, nonlocality and entanglement in quantum mechanics, etc. but I have no clue about Λ. This is the main reason, I have to write something about Λ.

Nevertheless, why I am so sure there has to “be” this Λ? I am not sure about Λ, but I do not want to make the same mistake as thinking there is only one Earth/planet or one galaxy, for instance. I am very convince there has to be different kinds of lives in our galaxy, in so many galaxies (from 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies). What kind of life would be even in our galaxy? What kind of life would be in other galaxies? We have no idea, but many scientists accept there has to be life not only on Earth. In the same way, I introduce Λ. I have to talk about Λ as something before the EW0, something beyond “is/existence-nothing”. I know for sure, my thinking has to go beyond this duality “is/existence-nothing” (rejecting infinite and God, of course – I will not repeat the rejection of infinite and God anymore since I have rejected both infinite and God completely…)

Again, somebody would criticize me claiming I said nothing about Λ. However, even the statement that Λ noexis means something. It is the starting point, I hope. (Again I avoid to write “the Λ”, I write just Λ…) So, Λ noexis. Again if the I is, I cannot even think about “Λ noexis”.[1] The first step was to use negation for everything regarding Λ. I even say that Λ not-noexis, it would be the same thing. (I cannot however use both, it would be a contradiction, I want to avoid any contradiction, even if it is about Λ.) Λ noexis because Λ has to be something beyond nothing or the EW0. So, we cannot even use not-noexis. But what was before Λ, was it nothing? Then we can have not-noexis. In this way, we return to the same problem: EW0 and hypercorrespondence with the EW1-n, Nothing and Big Bang followed by the field-EW, the micro-EW, etc. In order to avoid this gap, I claim it is meaningless to talk about “before Λ” since I avoid the regress ad infinitum. We have to put a stop, and this stop, similar to Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, for me is Λ (not nothing, existence, is, I reject any known duality in science and philosophy, therefore, moved-unmoved is meaningless for Λ). Anyway, Umoved moved is a very old notion, the physicists in the 20^th century had deal with nothing before Big Bang. So, nothing is something more scientifically. I constructed my EDWs perspective starting with EW0 (Hypernothing), but now I think I need to introduce something different than nothing/Hypernothing and this has to be Λ. Obviously, it is not something. It is not nothing. It is Λ. We already know that Λ noexis. So, recalling Hegel but in a completely different way, there has to be the triadic elements: nothing, something (existence/is) and Λ. If nothing is in contradiction with something, Λ has no contradiction, Λ is beyond any contradiction, duality, (infinite, God).

The problem is that “Λ is” from the above statement is quite a wrong expression, since I cannot even say that Λ is or Λ is not… since “is” or “is not” are meaningless notions for Λ. Suddenly, it seems that I have done another step regarding Λ, but the critics would claim, I introduced negation, again. Is Λ negation of everything? Yes, Λ involves the negation of everything, of every notion/word we have used until now, we can use in the future, but not a common negation. It does not mean, Λ is a negation in itself; Λ is not EW0. Λ is beyond the EDWs (EW0 included). This is the meaning of noexis: beyond the EW0/nothing, the EW1-n, electromagnetic field, microparticles, macroparticles, minds/lives, mega-EW, etc. “Λ noexis” is beyond any notion I have used in the EDWs perspective, it is beyond any concept from religion, nihilism, absolutism, relativism, etc. Λ is beyond anything we have thought until now (including all my principles/concepts of the EDWs perspective). Λ noexis, at least I have said something, even if this expression indicates only negations of what we have thought until now. But even indicates negations, “Λ noexis” is a positive statement. Λ beyond (Hyper)nothing-material-life, beyond nothing-field (continuity)-micro (material, discrete)-macro (material, discrete)-life (immaterial). Λ beyond anything we know or we can know. Each self appears in correspondence to nothing (and certain bodies), before its appearance, the Self is nothing, but there is the corresponding matter (in hypercorrespondences to EW0). Then Self became dead, it disappears as an EW; the Self becomes nothing. All matter hypercorrespond to EW0/nothing. So, there is nothing-matter-nothing. Λ is beyond this relationships. It is not a different state/substance (anyway, nothing is not a state/substance), Λ is beyond nothing-existence.

Have I said something about Λ until now? Probable, I have not wrote too much. Therefore, I have to continue adding more (positive) knowledge about Λ. Maybe through such negations, I will grasp new positive concepts and even ideas in my next work, I do not know...[2] We return to the same problem: the EW0 and the hypercorrespondenced with the EW1-n, Nothing and Big Bang followed by the field-EW, the micro-EW, etc. In order to avoid this gap, I claim it is meaningless to talk about “before Λ” since I avoid the regress ad infinitum. We have to put a stop, and this stop, similar to Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, for me is Λ (not is, existence, nothing, I reject any known duality in science and philosophy, therefore, moved-unmoved is meaningless for Λ). Anyway, Umoved moved is a very old notion, the physicists in the 20^th century had deal with nothing before Big Bang. So, nothing is something more scientifically. I constructed my EDWs perspective starting with EW0 (Hypernothing), but now I think I need to introduce something different than nothing/Hypernothing and this has to be Λ. Obviously, it is not something. It is not nothing. It is Λ. So, recalling Hegel but in a completely different way, there has to be the triadic elements: nothing, something (existence) and Λ. If nothing is in contradiction with something, Λ has no contradiction, Λ is beyond any contradiction, duality, (infinite, God). Λ is beyond nothing, this is the reason I did not introduce nothing in noexis. So, I can say that

Λ noexis: Λ is neither nothing nor something material (existence) or something immaterial (is). Λ noexis beyond nothing, existence, is.

In reality, this story is beyond literature (novel/poetry), philosophy (EDWs, Berkeley, Plato, etc.), religion (any kind of religion), science (any kind of science/theory), and whatever you, the reader, what to be… This story is like Beethoven V^th: the rhythm moves from one chapter to another, it moves in the same chapter several times, there are certain dramatic changes (since it is about Λ)… it is about “destiny of everything”, isn’t it? Therefore, the story has been beyond any imagination since Λ is so ineffable.

Bătrânul: Diavolule, ție ți-a zis G. ceva în plus despre Λ? Când ați fost doar voi doi, nu ți-a scăpat nici un detaliu despre Λ?
Blonda: Dar nu te înțeleg God, îți este frică de un super-God?
Bătrânul: Nici vorbă, eram doar curios dacă el chiar știa ceva în plus sau a fost doar o păcăleală...
Blonda: Știi și tu că nu avea cum să ne zică nouă mai multe detalii despre Λ care dacă ar fi ceva, statul lui Λ ar fi extrem de inefabil. Nu degeaba povestea asta are numele ăsta…
Bătrânul: Să înțeleg că nici ție nu ți-a zis nimic. Bine că am scăpat de el…
Blonda: Care el, G. sau Λ?
Bătrânul: Λ nu există, nu mă aburi...
Blonda: Eu poate aș mai fi vrut să fiu cu G., poate mă învăța și pe mine cum să mușc din mărul ala nenorocit…
Bătrânul: Care măr? L-a mâncat el pe tot...
Blonda: Dar dacă a creat alt pom, dacă are alte mere? Ca în Sacrificiul...
Bătrânul: Deci speri să fii însărcinată cu el? Să ai un copil cu G. iar copilul când crește să mă răstoarne, nu? Asta visezi, las’ că te știu eu... am să am mare grijă cum ai să-l crești...
Blonda: Vom vedea…
Bătrânul: Sper să nu fii însărcinată cu G.
Blonda: Eu nu sper nimic.
Bătrânul: Bine.
Blonda: Bine?

[1] Here, it is not even thing-in-iself versus phenomena Kantian distinction; it is beyond this distinction, it is beyond the self-external entities… Λ is beyond anything has been thinking until now. Anything…

[2] Obviously, I will avoid Heidegger’s pseudo-approach and pseudo-tools of inventing pseudo-notions in philosophy. Heidegger had no idea about physics, about quantum mechanics, about the mind-brain problem, therefore his philosophy is a Pseudo-philosophy, a mascaraed “mirroring” the Greek philosophy... Nobody will mention Heidegger in the second part of this century (not even the history of philosophy). I avoid such mascaraed of words… (see my previous works)