0 1 2

Lucid Lounge
1

** not sure if here or the lounge is best suited for this; but I figured here first as It does relate to random aspects of my spiritual ness **

0

1

0 1

2

0 1 2

0 1 and 2

0 and 1 and 2

0


First there was No-Thing (0).  An empty space, a null void, a vacum, or black whole.  What ever it is; it was the first thing.  zero. nada. empty.  No-Thing is really nothing, but is it something? A null void is something, empty space is something therefor No-Thing must be something as well. Because No-thing is something then it must be at least One-Thing (1).  What ever it is; because it is; it must be more than No-Thing (0).

So now we have No-Thing (0) the nothing; which is One-Thing (1); the something. The duality creates our next thing;  two things; both of which are either One-Thing or No-Thing, or Both-Things (2).

Since we have No-Thing (0) the nothing; which is One-Thing (1) the something, and the two-things equal Both-Things (2); we have the elements we need to create the next thing; No-Thing, One-Thing & Both-Things = Nu-Thing (3).

Now that we have the Nu-Thing (3) We can create Any-Thing ([size=200]∞[/size]). We can create triangle things, or platonic solid things, or spacial things, or pizza things; all of it stemming from No-Thing (0).

I came up with this little round-about to help myself understand there is no big nothingness to be scared of, or worry about, or consider as a negative. In my past I was hung up on the idea for a while, and so I figured I would share!

2

I have thought about this day and there is something in your theory I can not agree with.

Nothing is Something so there is atleast 1 thing.
But that does not mean that there a 2 things. You can’t say that nothing + something are two things. Because nothing and something are two names for the same thing.

3

i understand my wording is a bit confusing in the concepts but I have a couple possible ways to describe the essence of the creation of two; as described above.

0=1

You have two separate items, each with a different name, but equaling each other.

plus the above-ness is just silly-food-for-thought. I am sure there are plenty of logic flaws within it :wink: