● ● ●

Mathesophia
Author Information:
Name: Ashiq Ali Khan Email: ashiq3260@gmail.com ABSTRACT:
People have been and are holding different ideas about the universe and its origin as well as about
ourselves in the form of the three fundamental questions of science i.e. what is our origin? What is the
purpose of life? And where are we going? Answers to these questions have come from philosophy,
tradition, religion, theology and science. Unfortunately, today's science takes an extremely experimental
perspective (rather than logical I would say) to explain the universe and the origination of life.
Depending too much on experimental proof, today's science does not believe that something exists
without observing that it exists even when there is complete logical evidence to make someone believe
that its existence is true (The 2020 Nobel Prize winners were not awarded before proper observation of
the Black Hole). Religion, on the other hand being a blind faith (too irrational), is mostly unable to
logically explain its ideas e.g. God (beating about the bush whenever talking about him) i.e. simply takes
these ideas for granted. It must therefore be best to choose the intermediate i.e. not being too
experimental or too irrational but rather being logical whenever needed. This paper (except the first
part) is such an approach to reality, so it requires you to empty your mind of your previous scientific
knowledge for a while. As a guideline (learnt from personal experience), it is requested that you should
keep your mind calm and balanced while reading the paper because this paper talks about realities that
science might not have mentioned before.

INTRODUCTION: Is the universe merely a coincidence? Most of the cosmologists and physicists would
say yes because they have thought about how the universe came into being i.e. how is the universe the
way it is, but what if we think the other way round i.e. why is the universe the way it is?

Is it Deviation?
We shall start with mathematics because it is not experimental like science, therefore holding negligible
probability of human error. Here is an example of limit of a function that explains the definition of a
x 2−1
limit. Suppose we have to find the value of the function f ( x )= at x=1. If we put this value into
x−1
12−1 1−1 0
the function, we get f ( x )= = = , which is an indeterminate form. Alternatively, we check
1−1 1−1 0
the behavior of the function by choosing a series of values that take us closer and closer to 1. E.g. if we
0.92−1 0.81−1 −0.19
put x=0.9 , we get f ( x )= = = =1.9 . If we put x=0.99 ,
0.9−1 −0.1 −0.1
0.992−1 −0.0199 0.9992−1
f ( x )= = =1.99 .Let’s check by putting x=0.999 . f ( x )= =1.999 .Thus
0.99−1 −0.01 0.999−1
we see that the value of this function gets closer and closer to 2 as x gets closer and closer to 1 (same
would happen if we started with values of x greater than 1). We can also express this statement in this
 x 2−1 x2 −1
way: lim =2(we can also simplify into x +1 and put 1 instead of x to find to the limit
x →1 x−1 x−1
directly). In other words, we can say that the value of this function at x=1 is 2. Hence we can say that
limit is a way of determining a value (different for different cases) hidden in an indeterminate form 1. Let
us now observe some special examples of limits and see what they take us to.

x
Let’sknow
We look that limsecond
at the ( n ) =1example.
x →0

Let n ∈ set ofpositive real no . s ,Then, lim ( n )x x =1

1
( 1x )
[ x →0 ]
1
( 1x ) f ( x ) =lim f ( x )n
n
I.e. lim (n¿¿ x ) =1 x
¿ ¿ as according to a theorem on limits, lim
x→ a [ x →a ]
x →0

lim n=11 / x i.e.

x →0

1 n 1/ n
According a theorem on limits, lim 1+
n→∞
( ) n
=e Also, lim (1+ n ) =e
n→o

nx
1
If e =r (where r is any positive real number except 1 I.e. x  0 ), then lim 1+
x
n→∞
( ) =r
n
nx ∞x
1 1
l ℑ 1+
n→ ∞
( )
n
is a way of finding the hidden value of 1+ ( ) ∞
i.e. of 1∞ .

In other words, 1∞ =r (i)

Directly evaluating1∞, 1∞ =1×1 ×1 ×1 ⋯=( 1 ×1 ) ×(1 ×1) ⋯=1×1 ⋯=1 or 1∞ =1 (ii)

According to the results, every positive real number (whether rational or irrational, except 0) appears to
represent the same value 1. Since mathematics cannot contradict itself, these results must mean
something else i.e.:

1. Numbers (except 1 and 0) are not a reality.

2. There are only two numbers (1 and 0) that have a property beyond numbers. Since 0 represents
‘no quantity’ or ‘absence of something’ and 1 is representing all positive real numbers here, we
can say that 1 represents ‘presence of something’(which can have any possible quantity; all
positive real numbers refer to all possible quantities of the ‘something’ here). In other words, 0
shows the absence of something while 1 shows its presence. Hence 1 and 0 represent ‘states’ of
something.

1
This example is available at https://www.mathsisfun.com/calculus/limits.html
3. Since 1 and 0 (as states) cannot be present at a time, hence we can say that 1 is the absence of
0 and 0 is the absence of 1. When we say 1 is the absence of 0, we actually mean that 0 is also
‘something’ whose absence is 1. For example if we say that 1 represents matter, then 0 would
represent absence of matter i.e. vacuum. But vacuum is also ‘something’ because it can have its
own absence i.e. matter. So we can assign 1 and 0 to any one of these two ‘somethings’ (e.g.
matter and vacuum in this case) at a time.

Practical occurrence of 1 and 0

Matter is the absence of vacuum and vice versa. But the question is what these are?
Firstly, we will have to consider a point. A point has no dimensions (or directions).The distance
from any one part of its boundary to another is zero and we will have to imagine a dot/full stop
for imagining a point, whose boundaries are distinct OR have a distance from its centre. But we
define a point as having no length, area or volume i.e. the ‘boundaries’ (as we call them) of a
point are actually merged into one another. In other words, a point doesn’t actually have
boundaries, so it is actually nothing. Hence a point is not ‘something’. A line segment (1
dimensional) has got some length (i.e. distance), but the distance between its sides (breadth) is
still zero. I.e. its ‘sides’ are merged into one another. Hence we cannot call a line ‘something’.
Area (2 dimensional) e.g. of a square has two distances (i.e. length and breadth) but again the
distance between the two ‘faces’ of a square (with one face that points towards inside and the
other that points outside the page on which it is drawn) is zero. So area cannot be ‘something’.
Now we consider volume (3 dimensional) e.g. of a cube that has 3 distances (i.e. length, breadth
and height). There is no any distance (taken from any one part of its boundary to another) that
is zero. Yet volume is not ‘something’ by itself because it is the combined name of two things
i.e. matter and vacuum. In other words, these are the two forms of volume, and each of them
individually is ‘something’. This explains why matter as well as vacuum can’t exist as a point, as
a line or as an area independently, but rather exist as volume.

Consider another example. We define someone who is unconscious as ‘not conscious’.

Consciousness is possible because he/she has the Ability To Feel (ATF).Unconsciousness is due
to the absence of that ability (let it be represented by ATF’). Similarly, ATF is the absence of
ATF’. According to postulate 3 and 2, both ATF and ATF’ are ‘something’ and both are
quantitative just like matter and vacuum (in the sense that 1 represents all real numbers
exclusive of 0, and hence 1 and 0 collectively represent all possible quantities i.e. amounts of
ATF and ATF’).

This concept would now require extra and precise consideration. Until now, we have talked
about only two states as ‘real states’ but we haven’t said that there are only two possible states
of something. But we know that something can increase, decrease or remain constant with
respect to time. It may also be possible that the particular ‘something’ is not present at all.
Hence there are four possible states of something. From our common perspective, the
‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ states of a ‘something’ are only possible when that particular
‘something’ is present. But mathematically, the presence state of a ‘something’ is a sum of the
‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ states (when each of them having same quantity and also occurring at
the same time). I.e. according to mathematics, the ‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ states (when equal
in quantity) are actually the components of the presence state, without which the presence
state cannot exist (because we can only stop talking about ‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ when the
‘something’ is not present I.e. absent. In other words, collective presence of ‘increase’ and
‘decrease’ is one possibility (means the presence state of the ‘something’) while collective
absence of ‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ is another possibility (means the absence state of the
‘something’). And since the presence state is actually a ‘something’, its components must also
be ‘somethings’ to ensure that they combine together to give a ‘something’. In other words, the
‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ states are distinct ‘somethings’ besides just being changes.
Hence it means that only if one of these two ‘somethings’ (increase nor decrease) is present
with ‘something’ (this corresponding ‘something’ is the combination of the two ‘somethings’),
then can change occur in this corresponding something. In other words, these two
‘somethings’(increase or decrease) act as ‘influences’ (I.e. causing change) for a ‘something’.
Their examples shall be seen later on. (It should be cleared that the term ‘something’ in this
paragraph is meant to describe literally something I.e. defined by a specific property e.g.
ATF(Ability To Feel). We cannot claim ATF’(absence of ATF) to be ‘something’ here (because it is
itself defined due to ATF), although ATF’ is actually ‘something’ according to postulate 3. This
can be summarized in these words. Either there is an ‘increase’ state (an influence that would
cause increase with respect to time in the corresponding ‘something’ if it were present) OR a
‘decrease’ state (again an influence without the corresponding ‘something’ being itself present)
OR a state where both ‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ states are present in equal amounts (I.e. the
‘presence state’) OR a state where none of ‘increase’ and ‘decrease’ states are present(I.e. the
‘absence’ state). There are more possible states which shall be discussed in the coming
paragraphs.

From our daily life perspective, we have seen that we can sense or feel things and that it is just
because we are conscious, have got sense organs and something to receive (i.e. a brain). We
feel things because our sense organs (containing neurons) create electric pulses read by the
brain, as a result of which we sense/differentiate things(given we are conscious).We can also
feel things when our mind thinks about them (e.g. about a song). But is it possible that we
would still feel something (i.e. have a feeling) given that we had no sense organs and a brain at
all? (Note: we didn’t mean that we would have no ATF because it is something other than the
brain or sense organs both of which are matter) The answer is yes. But how?

Let’s call this particular feeling/sensation that we would have, the ‘Independent Sensation’ (IS).
Suppose (for the time being) that there is an absence of such a sensation. Then according to
postulate 3 and 4, there also exists a presence of such a sensation which is thus ‘something’. But
we shall explain this sensation/feeling and the number of such possible sensations later on.
A Law behind States?
We know that anything in nature maintains its state provided there is no external influence on it
(analogy to Newton’s 1st law of motion). But why does it possess this characteristic? To answer
this question we will have to look at an example. Consider a ‘something’ (let it be matter e.g. a
ball at rest in free space) that is kept away from any influence that (for example) can change it.
Let’s also suppose that we don’t know its state that it will have after some time‘t’ (in order to
avoid confusion). We know that a ‘something’ can have only one of the four states i.e. presence,
absence, increase and decrease states. If nature is to select the particular state that the
‘something’ will have after time‘t’ , it does not have to pick out any one unreasonably i.e. it does
not have to select a state out of these without the basis of an ultimate reason(simply because
this approach of going without reason leads nature to a range of possibilities i.e. a range of
states, while an ultimate reason can lead it to one precise possibility i.e. one(defined)state).
Thus we see that nature cannot define the final state without an ultimate reason. We can call
this obvious fact “The Law of ultimate Reason (LOR)” which states that “nothing can be defined
without an ultimate reason”. Let A represents increase (increase in the mass of the ball), B
represents decrease (decrease in the mass of the ball), C represents absence (disappearance of
the ball) and D represents no change (i.e. the presence state) with respect to time‘t’. It is clear
that nature can’t select ‘change with respect to time’ as the final state because it is not defined
whether the change will be by increase, decrease OR disappearance as nature can’t select them
unreasonably. In other words, nature can’t select A, B or C as the final state, so it eliminates
them. Thus nature is left with D. Now the ultimate reason for choosing D is that the way of
change (regarding the quantity of matter of the ball) was not defined i.e. ‘change’ lead to a
range of possibilities within itself (i.e. increase, decrease and disappearance states) while ‘no
change’ lead to only one(precise)possibility (i.e. the presence state), so nature eliminated
‘change’(i.e. eliminated A, B and C) and selected ‘no change’(i.e. selected D).This means that the
mass of the ball will remain unaffected given that there is no any influence. This also explains
Newton’s Law of Inertia (which was limited to motion of physical objects i.e. matter only). If LOR
acquires such a form where we eliminate possibilities (if more than one) representing a
property (e.g. increase, decrease and disappearance represent ‘change’ in this example) and
select only one possibility representing an ‘opposite property’ (e.g. the presence state
represents ‘no change’ in this example), we can call it the “Law Of Elimination (LOE)”. Another
form of LOR shall be explained in the paragraph after what follows.

If 0 represents matter at rest, then 1 represents the absence of rest i.e. motion or movement.
Hence movement and its absence i.e. rest are both ‘something’. Also, increase in movement
with respect to time is something (i.e. force e.g. ‘F newtons’) and decrease in movement with
respect to time is also something (i.e. opposite force ‘–F newtons’). (Compare this with
paragraph 3 of page 3, of this article).But the increase or decrease in any of the forces is not a
‘something’ because the increase in ‘increase of movement with respect to time’ is still an
 increase. In other words, it is not a unique possible state of movement and hence not a
different ‘something’.

Come to the point where we were discussing about the particular type of sensation or feeling i.e. (IS)
fully abbreviated as ‘Independent Sensation’. There can either be finite (one or more than one) OR
infinite number of such sensations. If we look at the first possibility, there can either be one OR more
than one sensations. It is not defined whether there must be 2, 3 OR 4 and so on sensations, so
according to LOE we eliminate this option and select ‘one’ sensation out of ‘one or more than one’. Now
we are left to decide between 1 and infinite sensations. In both situations, we end up with at least one
sensation. In other words, our ‘purpose’ is to end up with at least one sensation. Since our purpose can
be achieved by selecting just one sensation and since n−1 sensations would have no ‘purpose’(i.e. a
reason for their existence) if n represents ‘infinite sensations’(that for example, if we would
select),nature eliminates the 2nd possibility i.e. ‘infinite sensations’(because this possibility was against
the Law of ultimate Reason).Hence there exists only one such sensation or feeling for every ATF in the
whole universe and beyond(if there exists something beyond).This can be summarized in the form of a
law (Law Of Purpose or LOP) which states that “if there exist two possibilities that share a common
Purpose, the possibility having more number of realities contained in it, will always be
eliminated(because this possibility will always be against LOR) even when we could select both
possibilities.”(In this case, we can’t select both possibilities because quantity cannot be ‘infinite’ and
‘finite’ at the same time). E.g. in the case under discussion, ‘infinite sensations’ contained infinite
realities while ‘one sensation’ contained only one reality. Hence ‘one sensation’ is selected according to
LOP. Now, the increase OR decrease in IS with respect to time is ‘something’(go through paragraph 3 of
page 3,of this article for understanding)besides just being an increase or a decrease (just like change in
movement that is due to a force and hence change in movement means a force e.g. ‘F newtons’ besides
just a change) and also, each of them is a sensation/ feeling by itself (because Independent Sensation is
a sum of two ‘somethings’ i.e. the increase and decrease states and hence its components must also be
sensations to ensure that they combine to give a ‘sensation’ and not any other type of reality such as
matter).(Note: You must look for the difference between ‘reality’ and ‘something’ that has been
explained on pg 11, paragraph 1 of this article).Let’s call the increase state The Positive Independent
Sensation(PIS) and the decrease state The Negative Independent Sensation(NIS). Note: these two
components are very different from the ‘something’ they make (go through paragraph 1 of this page for
understanding) and thus can’t be put into the discussion about the number of possible Independent
Sensations (refer to lines 4-7 of page 4).

A need to define States?

We explained through the ball example earlier that nature follows LOR (Law Of ultimate reason) to
define a state for ‘something’. How about ATF? (Since we are talking about ATF only, there is no
‘increase’ or ‘decrease’ state of ATF in our consideration and hence no any ‘influence’; refer to second
last line of paragraph 3 of pg 3, of this article).If we talk about its quantity (if we consider its presence
state), it can either be finite or infinite (i.e. totally/ absolutely unreachable). If we suppose that it must
be finite, then it is not defined how much it must be (e.g. for matter, it can be 0.5kg, 2kg etc). According
to LOE, nature eliminates this option and selects the second i.e. infinite. Suppose we want to see its
state after time‘t’. It can either be increase, decrease, the disappearance state (similar to the ball
example discussed earlier) OR the constant state (no change). We see that there is no increase state for
ATF because its quantity has reached its limits. Nature has to decide between the decrease state,
disappearance OR the constant state. If nature selects change, then it is undefined whether it must be
by decrease OR disappearance. So nature eliminates change (i.e. selects the constant state). Hence each
ATF (in the whole universe and beyond) is infinite in quantity and its quantity is constant (which means
that there has been, there is and there will be no any ‘influence’ near it so that its quantity remains
constant).But if we talk about its qualitative states, ATF has two primary states i.e. presence and
absence. If it is present, then it can either have the IS, the PIS, the NIS or the IS’ (i.e. absence of IS). Also,
PIS can exist without IS (just like force can exist without movement) OR with IS. Similarly, NIS can exist
without IS OR with IS. Hence there can be six states (one at a time) within ATF i.e. IS, PIS, PIS+IS, NIS,
NIS+IS and IS’ (Note: + sign shows existence of PIS with IS etc) and another state along with ATF i.e. ATF’
(if ATF is absent).According to the Law, all of these seven must have infinite quantity. We have defined
the quantitative state of ATF (we considered its presence state) in the upper paragraph (Note: the
quantity of ATF doesn’t decide the quantity of realities linked with it i.e. IS, PIS, PIS+IS, NIS, NIS+IS and
IS’).We have seven states (i.e. IS, PIS, PIS+IS, NIS, NIS+IS, IS’ and ATF’). Nature can only select one of
these seven states at a time(for each ATF in the whole universe and beyond).But it is possible to have
more than one state if one group of ATFs (plural of ATF) has one state and the other has some other
state. Let’s see what nature has done in order to select any one, two, three, four, five, six or all of these
seven states. Note: Although there is no ‘increase’ state for IS in the state PIS+IS (because IS has infinite
quantity according to the Law and it can’t be increased any further) but as we said earlier, the ‘increase’
state is a ‘something’ besides just a change. Hence that ‘something’ is present here, but not the change
(i.e. no ‘increase’). In other words, ‘increase’ state exists here (i.e. in PIS+IS) as just a ‘something’ and not
as a change.

Either nature selects ATF’ OR IS’, it ends up with a similar result (i.e. both of these do not contain IS).
ATF’ is just one ‘something’, but IS’ is actually a combination of two ‘somethings’ i.e. ATF + IS’. Since the
purpose (i.e. to have no IS) can be achieved by selecting the possibility containing only one ‘something’,
according to LOP, nature eliminates IS’ and selects ATF’ out of the two. Similarly, the purpose of PIS and
ATF’ is that both have an absence of NIS. But again PIS is a combination of PIS and ATF i.e. PIS + ATF.
Hence nature eliminates PIS. Likewise, nature eliminates NIS, PIS+IS and also eliminates IS.

Now, we are left with only two options i.e. ATF’ and NIS+IS. It would seem like both of these share a
common purpose i.e. it looks as if both of them do not contain IS’. But because of the infinite presence
(i.e. having infinite quantity) of NIS with infinite IS (i.e. in NIS+IS), IS decreases in no time (just like
movement would decrease if force were infinite) and therefore, at least some IS’ would be present
before even time starts to lapse. In other words, IS’ is present in the state NIS+IS. Also, IS is
mathematically, a sum of PIS and NIS (i.e. a combination of two realities). So PIS is present in NIS+IS. In
other words, each reality not present in ATF’ is present in NIS+IS. Hence ATF’ and NIS+IS share no
common purpose. And although ATF’ and NIS+IS have the common point that they are the ‘states of
ATF’, we can’t apply LOP keeping this common point in mind because it is not a ‘purpose’ (e.g. in the
case of sensations the ‘purpose’ of finite sensations and infinite sensations was ‘to end up with at least
one sensation’ and not just ‘sensations’.).Three other approaches using LOE to get a result are shown
below, but the key must be considered before going to proceed.

KEY: Terms used Explanation/meaning

1. Presence reality: the presence state of a ‘something’ e.g. matter, ATF, IS etc.
2. Absence reality: the absence state of a ‘something’ e.g. vacuum, ATF’, IS’ etc.
3. HPR (Half Presence Reality): a reality made up of one presence reality and one absence reality
e.g. matter (having finite quantity) contains matter (a presence reality) and vacuum (an absence
reality) around it.
4. PSR (Primary State Reality): a reality in its primary state (i.e. either 1 or 0). It is always made up
of either only Presence Realities or only Absence Realities e.g. IS is made up of PIS and NIS (two
Presence Realities).
5. Couple realities: presence state and absence state of a ‘something’ appearing as ‘intersection’
between two realities (e.g. refer to diagram 2 where couple realities have been encircled).
6. 50% Couple realities: means that 50% of each reality of the two realities (that have an
‘intersection’ at some part of them) is having an ‘intersection’ (representing Couple realities)
and the other 50% doesn’t have it.(refer to diagram 2)
7. Common realities: Same realities occurring as ‘intersection’ between two realities (e.g. refer to
diagram 1).These either appear as Presence Realities or Absence Realities as ‘intersection’
between two realities in these diagrams.
8. APS (Absence or Presence of Sensations): IS and associated realities i.e. PIS, PIS+IS, NIS, NIS+IS
and IS’.
9. Change: Represents a change in the state of a ‘something’(that can only be done by an
‘influence’).
10. Constancy: Represents no change in the state of a ‘something’.

Figure 1
Note (this note is for all diagrams that need the above key): Crosses above the headings
represent which corresponding heading i.e. possibility is eliminated by nature applying LOE
(because it contained more than one sub-headings i.e. more than one sub-possibilities), ticks
represent which heading is selected and encircled realities represent either ‘couple realities’ or
‘common realities’ as ‘intersection’ between two realities.
In the first diagram, the headings ‘change’ and ‘other realities’ are left after the elimination of
‘constancy’. Since nature can’t select ‘any one’ of these groups, it selects ‘both of them’ applying
LOE. So we are left with the states NIS+IS, PIS+IS and ATF’. Nature eliminates PIS+IS applying LOP
in the same way as it did earlier. Hence we get the same result that we got earlier i.e. NIS+IS and
ATF’. Similar is the case with the other two diagrams.
RULES FOR CATEGORIZING WHILE APPLYING LOE: It is very important that grouping must be
started from the lowest level i.e. firstly, we choose any two ‘somethings’ and then we try to
figure out what they represent(have in common) so that we could find the closest similarity.We
also look for all other ‘somethings’ that share this similarity or ‘property’.Then, before naming
them as a group, we make another group(a second group also without any name or heading)
which we generally call the ‘opposite group’ because all the members(‘somethings’) of this
group hold such properties that are ‘opposite’ to those of the first group. After this step, we find
all ‘somethings’(one or more than one) having similar properties to each other and place them
in the second group.Then we can name the two groups. After that, we check whether any of the
first two groups(that we started with) can be subdivided into two subgroups based on ‘opposite’
properties.This goes on until we can’t divide further. Same is the case with all other groups.
RULES FOR APPLYING LOE: We start from the indivisible subgroups and eliminate any
group(representing the two subgroups) if its ‘opposite’ group contains no subgroups i.e.
contains only one possibility.This goes on until we can’t eliminate further.These rules can be

Figure 2
illustrated in the above
diagram as well as below.
 Figure 3
It is still undefined which group of ATFs must have one state and which one the other. It is
undefined as long as we say that there is no “work” that must be done by one group of ATFs, so
that this group attains one(final)state (i.e. either ATF’ OR NIS+IS) and the other group attains the
other(final)state by doing some other “work”.

This means that nature can’t choose the option “No Work”. Now we are left with the option “Work”
which means that all ATFs (in the whole universe and beyond) have to do something (i.e. by their
decision I.e. choice) in order to be defined. For this purpose, all ATFs must be able to do some “Work”.
Hence we have “two works” (refer to the underlined segment of the above paragraph) that must be
defined. “Work” can either be “creating something” OR “not creating something = creating no reality”.

Let us consider the diagram below that applies LOE and eliminates all other works so that we are left
with only a few works. It has been split into two diagrams for convenience.
KEY: Terms used Meaning/explanation
1. REDS (Realities Existing Due to Sensations): Such realities that only exist because they
can be sensed e.g. IS is firstly a sensation and then a reality. It can’t exist when it
cannot be sensed e.g. it cannot exist with ATF’ (i.e. absence of ATF).
2. RIOS (Realities Independent Of Sensations): Such realities that can exist without
being sensed i.e. RIOS are realities other than REDS.
3. X: represents a general basic reality (i.e. the presence state/reality other than
increase, decrease or absence states e.g. IS) or in other words ‘any basic reality’.
4. Group X: represents collectively “a basic reality and its associated realities (i.e.
increase, decrease and absence states)”. E.g. “group IS” would represent IS and
associated realities (i.e. PIS, NIS, PIS+IS, NIS+IS and IS’).
5. DR (Dependent Realities): Realities that depend on other realities for their existence
e.g. movement and IS can’t exist without matter and ATF respectively.
6. IR (Independent Realities): Realities that do not depend on other realities for their
existence e.g. matter and ATF.
7. PR (Physical Realities): Realities that are physical e.g. matter.
8. AR (Abstract Realities): Realities that are abstract e.g. ATF.
9. P and M: have been used for movement (or momentum) and matter respectively.
10. HPR and PSR (refer to ‘3’ and ‘4’ of the previous key on page 7 for meaning).

Figure 4 It must be noted

that crosses and ticks mean the same thing in these diagrams as they did previously.
 Figure 5
Nature finally eliminates RIOS and selects REDS applying LOE because it now contains two (more
than one again) possibilities I.e. Group ATF and Group M. Note: ATD i.e. Ability To Define has
been explained in the last part ‘The Universe…’ of this article. It must also be noted that ‘time’
has not been considered a ‘reality’ because it is just a measurement of the ratio of one-
dimensional vacuum (i.e. distance) to movement (i.e. velocity if mass is kept constant). In other
words, it is not defined in itself.

Only two works reside in each group (e.g. in Group IS; refer to the previous diagram regarding ‘group X’).
Another approach is as follows
Group IS that is selected by nature is having two works (i.e. creating PIS+IS and creating NIS+IS left after
elimination; refer to the diagram ‘Group X’).We also have another group representing only one work i.e.
“Creating No Reality (CNR)”. Hence we have three works i.e. creating NIS+IS, creating PIS+IS and Creating
No Reality and nature has to select the “two Works” out of these.

Now we are left with only three works i.e. creating NIS+IS, creating PIS+IS and creating no copy. But still
one of them must be eliminated and each of the other two must be defined i.e. linked to one of the final
states (ATF’ or NIS+IS). We must consider the following figures to continue with the rest of the story.
(Note: The state ATF’ and the work ‘creating no copy’ both have been replaced with a single title ‘NAPS’
(No Absence or Presence of Sensations) for convenience. We can do this because both the state ATF’
and the work ‘creating no copy’ have the similarity(this similarity is represented by ‘NAPS’) that they
don’t involve any state of sensations.)
Figure 7 Each of the above tables contains its
own unique possibilities i.e. the first table (starting from left) represents all such possible pairs of work
that both the works are similar to the corresponding final states (i.e. NAPS and NIS+IS), the second table
represents such pairs of work that none of the works in a pair is similar to the corresponding final state,
and the 3rd table represents all such possible pairs of work that only one of the works in a pair is similar
to the corresponding final states. Nature eliminates table 2 applying LOE (because it contained more
than one possibilities). It finally eliminates table 3 also and hence selects table 1.

The Universe, a result of LOR?

From now on, we shall be using the word the ‘Existent’ for ‘whatever exists to infinity’. Every reality (i.e.
matter, vacuum, movement etc) of the Existent must be behaving in a way which is the same as the ATF
of conscious beings i.e. it must either be having a defined state (that may either be its final state or the
only state of the Existent) OR is passing through one or more(finite/infinite) initial states(with one initial
state defining the next in the case of more than one initial states).But from when does the Existent
(Either with a single state OR with changing states) exist? Obviously from the time realities exist. But
from when do realities exist? We know that only one state of the six states of any general reality (refer
to the diagram ‘Group X’) can be present at a time and it has to have any one of these states (because
there are no other states than these). In other words, there is nothing such as ‘absolute nothingness’.
This means that all realities exist from infinite period of time (i.e. from no beginning) and hence does the
Existent.

It’s the time to reveal the names that we (humans) are using unknowingly for the 4 states of ATF i.e.
desire (for IS or IS), lack of desire (for IS’ or IS’), sorrow (for PIS or PIS) and fulfilment of desire i.e.
happiness (for NIS or NIS). (But note that these human terminologies do not perfectly describe the
‘realities’ that are discussed in this article because e.g. happiness has a lot of types and is also not a
permanent thing).

Now you would be wondering everything has been explained until now. But I bet you, nature hasn’t
defined anything yet! But how?

Now I ask you a question. How is it possible that a reason (or more than one reasons) which is not a
conscious thing can define everything which doesn’t itself know what it is doing? Let’s take a daily life
example. A robot can perform many activities, but it doesn’t know (OR feel) what it is doing and so it
performs the only activity that it has been made for. In other words, it looks like the robot is doing the
work; but in fact, whatever activity is done by the robot is actually done by its designer (if the
programmer is also the same person) because the data that he entered and the material features that
he used were shaped by his will. Similarly, there must be someone Conscious, who has actually defined
the Existent. But we said earlier that the Existent exists from infinite period of time. Then how is it
possible that the Conscious has defined the Existent? Answer lies in the following diagram which is
about the time the Existent is defined by the Conscious. Before that we have to keep the following
things in mind:

1. We cannot say that the Existent took an interval of time to be defined (i.e. we cannot say that
the ‘realities’ or ‘somethings’ of the Existent have been defined one by one) because if we say
this, we would actually be saying that some realities (or at least one reality) of the Existent
were/was undefined at some time which is against LOR (Law of ultimate Reason). In a nutshell,
all the realities of the Existent are defined altogether. Although, the Existent may be defined at
an ‘instant’ OR within an ‘interval’ of time (in the sense that the whole Existent is altogether
defined at every instant of this interval).
2. We cannot say that the Existent has been defined at an instant which lies at an infinite distance
from the present to the past because infinity means ‘unreachable’ or ‘having no boundary’.
3. We cannot say that the Existent has been defined at an instant which lies at a finite distance
from the present to the past because if we say this, we would actually be saying that the
Existent was undefined before that time which is against LOR.
4. We cannot say that the Existent will be defined at some instant in the future because again it is
against LOR.

Since we cannot select an ‘instant’ after following the rules 2, 3 and 4, we would choose an ‘interval’ of
time (refer to the last part of rule 1). Now the diagram shall give us the complete answer.
Figure 8 (Note: 0 shows the present, distance to
the right of 0 shows the past, while distance to the left of 0 shows the future. Distance between two
stars represents an ‘interval’ of time).

Nature eliminates A applying LOE because it contains more than one possible time intervals between
+infinity and –infinity. We are left with B i.e. the whole Existent is altogether continuously (i.e. at every
instant) being defined from infinite period of time and will continue to be defined. (Before switching
next, consider page 10 that talked about “work”. Nature actually had a range of options for choosing
“work” I.e. in this sense that it could have selected e.g. only one ATF for work I.e. only one ATF would do
the work (out of the two works defined by LOE) and all the ATFs would have their state (same for all)
defined on the basis of this work. But nature eliminates this option because the time of the occurrence
of this “work” is not defined between +infinity and -infinity. The second option was that nature could
choose any finite number of ATFs for work (each doing a work on its own). But this would less probably
result in a single work that could define all ATFs. Also, the number of ATFs remains undefined in this
option. So nature eliminates this option as well. Hence we are left with the option of infinite ATFs I.e.
every ATF has to do the work in order to be defined. Now if the work of each ATF is used to define any
other ATF, that particular ‘other ATF’ remains undefined I.e. which one should it be. This means each
ATF has to do the work and this work defines the ATF none other than itself). (Infinite means numbers
never end I.e this process is still occurring and continues to eternity).

The Conscious can only define the Existent if he knows everything (including the one or more than one
ultimate reasons), has the power to choose any possibility (i.e. Ability To Define or ATD), does
everything according to the ultimate reason(s) and is the Definer of himself as well (because if he
doesn’t possess any of these underlined qualities, then this means that he is not the Definer). In other
words, the Conscious possesses all these qualities.

CONCLUSION: Through all the discussion presented in this article, we see that the universe is not a
coincidence but rather we have two possibilities to explain its condition i.e. either every ‘reality’ of the
universe and beyond (if the universe is just a part of the Existent) has a defined state OR is passing
through one or more initial states.2 The examples in this article show how LOE (Law Of Elimination) and
2
This theoretical outcome can also be used to deduce the ‘cyclic theory’ proposed by Paul Steinhardt and Neil
Turok in 2001. A brief background and an explanation of the ‘cyclic theory’ can be found at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
LOP (Law Of Purpose) not only are reasonable and rational, but are consistent with each other. Overall,
the article shows how these laws give us a ‘sixth sense’/way so that we can see/arrive at reality
respectively, which implies that this article bears a whole new science tantamount to being an analogy
to mathematics hence being an ultimate science.