The metaphysics of Λ (Lambda), (beyond Hypermetaphysics, i.e., beyond “exist”, “being”, “nothing”)

The discovery of metaphysical truth will benefit mankind.
Gödel

This short paper is about the metaphysics of Λ (Lambda). This metaphysics is beyond my Hypermetaphysics (the metaphysics of Hypernothing or EW0). Λ does not exist, it is not being, it is not nothing. Λ is Λ and nothing else (“is” in this expression is quite wrong since Λ is not being).

What is Λ? Meaningless question since “is” in this expression is quite wrong since Λ is not being, it does not exist, it is not nothing. Then, can we talk about Λ? I am not sure, I will try to say something about Λ just because I do not want to be placed within those who have promoted the thing-in-itself. Λ is not the thing-in-itself since Λ is not a thing, it is not a being, it is not nothing. Λ = Λ, we know, but what can I say about Λ?

Λ is the beyond-EW, it is before the EW0 (or Hypernothing). I need to introduce Λ within my EDWs just because I cannot explain the hyperrelations between the EW0 (Hypernothing) and the EW1a-n. Obviously, before the EW1a-n there is nothing (EW0), but this hypercorrespondences would deny main principle of ontology, Parmenides’ principle: “Nothing can appear from nothing”, even if this appear refers to hypercorrespondences. So, Λ is beyond any EW (including the EW0).

After working many years on my discovery, the EDWs, after I have solved all the great problems from particular sciences (physics, cognitive neuroscience, biology) and philosophy (and the main problems from Cosmology, the origin of the universe, BBs, etc.), I reached this conclusion: there had to be Λ and not EW0 (or Hypernothing). Λ is not even a kind of hyper-existence or hyper-being. In the past, I rejected the main hypothesis about the origin of “universe”: nothing, infinite, God. My Λ is beyond all these hypothesis. Obviously, Λ is not something (existence or being). So, Λ is NOT something like being, nothing, infinite, God. Somehow close to Kant (but going beyond his noumena-phenomena wrong distinction), I consider that the main notions, existence (referring to ED material entities) and being (referring to the immaterial entities, like minds/lives) cannot be applied to Λ. (I avoid even to use “the” before Λ.) It seems that I would be unable to say something positive about Λ. I hope I would say something, not only something negative, not even something positive, but something beyond positive-negative distinction. However, I repeat, it has to be very clear, Λ is not a kind of thing-in-itself; Λ is beyond thing-in-itself, object, material or immaterial entity or process. Λ is not an entity or a process since Λ does not exist, it is not being. Moreover, Λ is not nothing (EW0). Λ is not even an EW, therefore we cannot even say that Λ is not for any EDW. Λ is beyond any kind of correspondence and hypercorrespondence with any EDW. Then what is the relationship between Λ and any EW since we cannot use (hyper)correspondence? I have to answer to this question in this work.

In my previous works, I indicated that the field-EW corresponds to the micro-EW which corresponds to the macro-EW which corresponds to the mind-EW and all these EDWs hypercorespond to the EW0. As I emphasize above, there is a problem with this relationship: the hypercorrespondence. I wrote, in the past, that the EW0 hypercorresponds to the EW1a-n but such hypercorrespondences do not have any ontological status. Moreover, these hypercorrespondences do not have any ontological status. We do not need any ontological status since these hypercorrespondences eliminate the other alternatives: God and regression ad infinitum, but not nothing. In fact, the EW0 is nothing. Then what would be the problem?

As I wrote in the past, the problem is that all these hypercorrespondences would be just accidentally. In my previous works, I compared these accidentally hypercorrespondences with the accidental appearances of life on Earth. But, in this analogy, there is a great problem: if life, as a new EW, appeared accidentally in relationship with the phenomena belonging to the macro-EW, the EW1a-n had appeared in hypercorrespondences to the EW (Hypernothing), and this would be a great problem. I recall Parmenides’ verdict: “Nothing can appear from nothing!” We have to accept this verdict. The, if the EW1a-n had appeared in hypercorrespondences with the EW0, Parmenides’ verdict is reject, but we cannot accept this rejection. In order to avoid it, we can preserve nothing (no ontology) in (hyper)correspondence to any EDW, but finally, we have to introduce a new EW, lambda (or Λ). We do not have any causality between the EW0 and the EW1a-n, but this notion of “hypercorrespondence” is the main problem in my EDWs perspective. We can accept the order of appearances of these EDWs, but if we accept the EW0 (as the first EW), then we contradict Parmenides’ law.

We know that there is a correspondence between the macro-EW and the micro-EW and between the micro-EW and the field-EW, but the “hypercorrespondences” between nothing (EW0) and the EW1a-n is a quite dubious notion. Even if correspondences and hypercorrespondences do not have any ontological status, there is a great problem with the hypercorrespondences. Even if there is no causality between the EW0 and the EW1a-n (so, we do not need any external force for these hypercorrespondences), the hypercorresponces is not a correct notion since the correspondences between EDWs refer to certain ED entities, while the hypercorrespondences refer to nothing and ED entities! This is the great problem with the hypercorrespondences and the EW0, even if the beginning of the EW1a (for instance) did not need any external causality, so, the principle of conservation of “energy” was preserved. We accept that the beginning of each EW (including the EW1a-n) takes place inside each EW; we accept that nothing happened within the EW0 in these hypercorrespondences. However, Parmenides’ law had been broken: nothing can appear from nothing, i.e., in my terms, nothing could not be in hypercorrespondences with the EW1a-n. In reality, the EW0 is more than nothing, it is something beyond nothing; in my new terms, the EW0 is nothing but beyond nothing (no ontology, anyway) is Λ (also no ontology (no existence, no being) but neither nothing).

Obviously, the perspective about Λ is pushing further Kant’s distinction, noumena-phenomena: it is not something which it exist but we cannot even know what is there. Λ is something which does not even exist, it is something beyond existence, being, nothing. This is the reason, Λ is not a new kind of noumena since noumena requires a new kind of existence while Λ is beyond existence, being, nothing. Then, it seems that Λ is something beyond our thinking, that is, a kind of noumena. No, Λ is beyond our possibility of thinking in our days, but maybe it is something we will be able to think in two or three millenniums.  Therefore, I believe I can say something about Λ even in our days. Maybe I can say that in order to furnish some details about Λ, it would be necessary to get out of my skin, to get out of my mind. I do not believe it would be enough to find some details about Λ in such new conditions since to get out of my skin/mind, it would mean to be something else or to exist as a new entity. The problem is that Λ is beyond existence, being, nothing. There has always been a hope for some great thinkers who could not some problems, for Descartes declared that the mind-brain problem which could be solved by humans. I do not claim we cannot solve Λ because, I have solved the mind-brain problem, the Big Bangs, and many other problems in Physics, Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy. I do not claim I will find the definition of Λ. Maybe, following Newton (who could not define gravity but furnished its mathematical formula), I could claim that within or even rejecting my approach, EDWs perspective, somebody would be able to find a definition of EDWs perspective. I do not claim even this statement. I will try to find the definition of Λ, even if I am not completely sure, it is true. So, I recognize at least that I am not totally sure about Λ. What does this mean, I am not sure Λ does exist? Wrong question, since Λ is not existence, nor being, nor nothing.

Then why do I need Λ? Because I follow Parmenides’ principle: from nothing, nothing can appear. Hypernothing is nothing and it still a term in my equation, together with my EDWs. But, I have understood I have to go beyond HN/nothing, beyond all the EDWs in order to try to solve the “origin of the Universe”, i.e., the origin of the EDWs. I repeat, the origin is a wrong notion since the HN is not the origin of the EDWs, but mostly it hypercorresponded (no ontology) to the EW1a-n. So, I can preserve the HH in my equation, but the EW0 (HN) is not enough for explaining the (hyper)correspondences of all the EW1a-n. Beyond the EW0 (HN) it “has been” (wrong notion) Λ.

As I emphasized in my previous works, the EW1a-n appeared in hypercorrepondences with the HN (EW0), these hypercorrespodences do not explain (ontologically or hyperontologically) the appearances of the EW1a-n. I introduced the accidentally appearances of the EW1a-n in order to save the phenomena, but I am still not content with this notion “accidentally”. I made the analogy with the accidentally appearances of “life” (immaterial substance) in correspondences to different kind of matter (material substance). The problem is that, in this case, there are correspondence between two different ontological substances. When I talk about HY (EW0) in hypercorrespondences with the EW1a-n, there are not hypercorrespondences between two different ontological substances, but between nothing and different (ontological) substance and this “rule” is against Parmenides’ principle. Therefore, it was necessary for me to introduce Λ in my equation. So, this is the reason for introducing Λ.

In my previous works, I tried to explain the hypercorrespondences between the HN and the EW1a-n: hypercorrespondences means that nothing happens within the EW0, i.e., HN remained EW0 (nothing), but EW1a (for instance) had spontaneously appeared in the hypercorrespondence with the EW0. So, there was not any causality (not even correspondences – available between EDWs like field-EW and micro-EW, for instance) between these the EW0 and the EW1a-n.  I emphasized that I do not need any “Prim Motor”/God/nothing (Aristotle) in my equation for explaining the “accidentally” appearances of the EW1a-n. However, I was not able to explain what “accidentally” exactly means in this case. We know what accidentally means when we explain the appearance of life in correspondence to the matter (the macro-EW): many different combinations of macro-matter indirectly produced, through correspondences, the appearances of different forms of life (on Earth and surely on other planets in our galaxy and in other galaxies). However, “accidentally” is not be very useful when we talk about the HN and the EW1a-n. It could be an alternative and some people (naturalists) could accept it. I am also naturalist (God could not even exist), I am not even dualist (even if the mind-EW is an immaterial EW while the macro-EW (where the brain/body is placed) but the mind-EW is not for the macro-EW, even if both these EDWs exist/are.

Also, I wrote that each Prime Motor had been inside each EDW which appeared in hypercorrespondences with the EW0. So, we do not need Prim Motor/God in explaining the accidentally appearances of the EW1a-n, but I am not content with “accidentally”. Indeed, it sound great that nothing had changed within the HN/EW0 (i.e., nothing, no ontology, mostly a kind of hyperontology, but still it is nothing). Nothing can appear from nothing. Therefore, I need Λ which it is not a new kind of matter, but neither a new God. Λ is beyond any kind of substance (material or immaterial), but it is also beyond nothing (no ontology). Λ is Λ and nothing else, but this statement is not an explanation of Λ.

In my previous works, I indicate the eternal ontology-epistemology distinction has been the worst distinction in philosophy (before philosophy, and any religion has promoted such human “limits”. Nevertheless, we have to recall Locke’s distinction between the primary and the secondary qualities: in reality, from my viewpoint, the primary qualities are available for many living species and even for entities which belong to the same EW or even to EDWs. For instance, the “extension” of material entities (micro, macro, field-EW) are properties not only for humans, but also for other species and ED entities from EDWs. Colors are secondary order properties which do not even belong to ED material entities. With Λ, we have to go beyond such notions, beyond existence, being, nothing. So, I am forced to invent a new verb: lame. Lame is analog to existence and being but it does not refer to something material or immaterial, it refers to Lambda (which it does not exist, it isn’t, it is not nothing). So,

“Λ lames”[1],

in analogy with “a stone exists”, “a body exists”, “a mind/life is”,  “nothing does not exist/is” (i.e., nothing has no ontology at all).

In this new linguistic context, we have three verbs: exist (for the ED material entities), being (for the living/thinking entities), lame (for Λ). More exactly, the chronological order (even if time does not exist) is lame, exist, being since “Λ have been lamed” before “the ED material entities have existed” and “the lives/mind have been”. In reality, even the expression “Λ have been lamed” is not correct, but we have to use language in order to communicate even if the truth is always related to language, i.e., only a linguistic statement can be true or not but, as I indicated in 2024, there is no truth for any statement, there are real things (some of them are expressed by humans in language). So there is a huge difference between real things/processes and linguistic statements. I will use a more simple expression: “Λ lames”. Only having this expression, we change many things from the past (even from my works). We go beyond the Hypernothing (HN or EW0), and we reject completely many pseudo-notions like nothing, God, infinite, etc. From what I know, nobody has gone beyond material and immaterial entities and also rejected nothing, God, infinite, and many other pseudo-notions. I repeat: Λ has no properties like extension or thinking (I recall, the same entity could have both properties at the same time); nevertheless, Λ has no properties at all, or at least it has no properties that we know. In fact, I think it is better to consider that Λ has no properties at all. Then what is Λ? Λ lames. For understanding something about Λ, we need not only to change our language, we need to change, dramatically, our thinking, our mode of thinking which it has been developed under the “dictator of habituation” in the last 2,500 years. Humans have invented, developed and used various concepts but explaining Λ, we need to go beyond existence, being, nothing. It does not mean these notions are wrong since we can apply them, in a good way, to explain the ED entities (macro-EW, micro-EW, mind-EW). Even the EW0 is not a wrong notion (since Hypernothing is nothing, it has no ontology, but a kind of hyperontology), but I has not been contented with this notion, therefore, I wanted to find something beyond nothing (not God, infinite, noting). In the last two years, I have been, somehow, forced to introduce Λ. It is not about a new language or a new way of thinking or stop thinking or stop inventing new concepts. It is something to go beyond all your limits imposed by language and thinking, existing/non-existing and being/non-being. In a way, it is not being mute, or my body does not exist, my mind does not think, or me to be nothing (dead or not born) but something beyond all these possibilities. Shortly, I have to go beyond my own thinking even if with my thinking I have solved all the great problems of particular sciences and philosophy in the past. Again, using my imagination (more important than knowledge – see Einstein), I have to go beyond existence, being and nothing for discovering some details about Λ. Anyway, at least, I could recall: Λ lames.

Following the Big Bangs (13.8 billion years ago) from nothing, several EDWs have appeared, each of them in itself and for itself, but the field-EW in correspondence to the pre-Big-Bang-EW, the micro-EW in correspondence to the field-EW, the macro-EW in correspondence to the micro-EW, and the mind-EW in correspondence to the macro-EW. Nothing has no ontology, the mind-EW is, and all the other EDWs exist, but each EW exists or is in itself and in correspondence to an EDW. The HN (EW0) has a hyperontology, but it is still nothing. Beyond the HN, I have to add Λ; so, there are different notions which refer to the EDWs: lames, nothing, existence, being. These EDWs are Λ, HN/nothing, EDWs.

In my previous works, I considered that the HN/EW0 hypercorresponded to the EDW1a-n. These EDWs appeared accidentally in hypercorrespondences to the EW0. However, accidentally presupposes that, for instance, the EW1a appeared in one moment/period. The question is why then and not earlier or later? Accidentally, hypercorrespondences to the EW0 (nothing), each EW was in itself and for itself allowed me to construct this idea. Nevertheless, for these “first accidents”, I did not have any real argument for supporting them. So, later, I had to introduce Λ and in my pre-work of this work (posted on Internet in October 2025), I introduced “Λ lames” as an alternative to nothing, exist, being since we have to reject:

• nothing since nothing can appear from nothing
• something material since we cannot have an answer from where that material has appeared in the past; if there was an EDW (material), we follow the regression ad infinitum, but infinite is rejected from my EDWs perspective
• obviously, we cannot accept a new God or something immaterial as the eternal being.

These are the main arguments for rejecting all notions, concepts, theories, approaches from all the particular sciences, religions and philosophy. Notions like nothing, exist, being, infinite, God, something material or immaterial, etc. (notions available for the EDWs) have to be totally rejected when we talk about Λ. My new verdict is: “Λ lames” even if I have no idea (yet) what “Λ lames” means. We cannot use correspondences or hypercorrespondences between Λ and the EDWs since we have no meaning for “Λ lames”. We know that it is not our language which dictates “our world” (I have always been against “philosophy of language”, i.e., just masturbation in philosophy). Trying to explain Λ, I realize that it is not language the problem, but apparently, it is about our mode of thinking (so something related to evolution of our specie, the evolution of all the living species). However, it is not even our mode of thinking, it is not the evolution of living species, but it is about the existence and nothing. It is very clear, the Earth (the macro-entity within the macro-EW) has existed before the appearance of any living being since without the existence of the Earth as a macro-entity (or an amalgam of macro-entities), any living being (which it has to corresponds to its body always a macro-entity, not a microparticle) has always to corresponds to a macro-entity (“its” body). We do not need our language to accept this real physical fact. So, we need to inquire about existence.

In almost the entire 20^th century, the main explanation has been that from nothing, it appeared Big Bang (13.8 billion years ago) and, according to my EDWs perspective, through the hypercorrespondence to the EW0, the field-EW, the micro-EW, the macro-EW and the life-EW spontaneously appeared following a line of correspondences from the EW0 to the field-EW, the micro-EW, the macro-EW, the life-EW, the mega-EW and so on. We know these EDWs really are, but we have to add something beyond the EW0: Λ lames. Obviously, we cannot stop the correspondence to the mega-EW since there are quite great chances a “larger” EDW to be. I do not have any proof there is a “hyper-mega-EW”, but it has to be a credible hypothesis. However, we cannot go to infinite in this case, neither in the case of micro. Following Aristotle, we have to put a stop to the regress ad infinitum both in “space” (micro or macro) and in “time”.

Λ (the new EDWs framework) versus 3OWA (the old but wrong unicorn world framework)
Regarding the EDWs, except the EW0 (no ontology), any EW has a “beginning” in itself since all these EDWs exist or are, but in (hyper)correspondences to the EW0. However, Λ (which neither exists, nor is) has no “beginning” or “eternal ontological status” since “Λ lames” but not exist/being/nothing. Regarding the “beginning of the world”, in order to avoid the only “three old but wrong alternatives” (3OWA)  

• “God”
• “regression ad infinitum”
• “nothing”,

I need to introduce “Λ lames”. Otherwise, we could not furnish a clear answer regarding the “beginning”. Λ has no beginning just because Λ neither exist nor is; also, Λ is not nothing, not something but Λ lames. It means that neither the HN, nor the Λ was the “beginning of the world” just because, Λ does not exist/is but Λ lames. It is absolutely compulsory for us to accept Λ lames, otherwise, we have to return to those previous 3OWA, of course, quite a wrong movement since we are now within the new EDWs framework and not within the old and wrong framework, the unicorn world.

[1] As a linguistic convention, I use Λ as singular (therefore I lames not lame), but lambda is beyond singular or plural.