Premise 01 – Material location is incomplete.

Premise 02 – Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory is a logical narrative that models an empirical reality that pertains to the limits of what can be reasoned.

Premise 03 – Heisenberg’s Equation of Uncertainty models an empirical reality that pertains to the limits of what can be located via measurement.

Premise 04 -- That attempts to contain the scope of existence within a set with boundaries will always fail expresses the limit of cosmology.

Premise 05 – Superposition affords evidence material things are not finally locatable and are thus in themselves incomplete.

Conclusion 01 – There is no material universe. Instead, universe is a concept that relates to material reality as an abstract limit. The questing human mind, always on the watch for logical patterns, imagines a universe not actually there.

Conclusion 02 – Saying the universe has no beginning and no end, that is, saying it is eternal, amounts to the same thing as saying there is no universe.

Conclusion 03 – That there is no universe is a deep expression of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the material platform upon which Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory operates existentially.

Conclusion 04 – Because material location is incomplete, the comprehension restriction within set theory is necessary.

The necessity of the comprehension restriction affords evidence no definitive origin of a universe of existence can be distilled.

Speculation – The inconsistency between the quantum realm and the cosmic realm provides evidence material location is incomplete and that therefore there is no coherent universe. Instead, there is an approach to universe that never finalizes.

Essence of being – Conditional mystery. There is deduction from essential conditional mystery to the incompleteness of logical and empirical narratives. There is no induction from the conditional mystery of logic and science to general mystery.

The Big Bang is a concept (abstraction) without an empirical corollary.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Equation is the Math Operator – That the location of material things is not completely measurable – thus implying material things are in themselves incomplete – gains expression through Heisenberg Uncertainty.

Russell’s Paradox is the Logical Operator – That material location is incomplete gains expression through Russell’s Paradox:

• The list of all lists not listing themselves requires its inclusion. However, its inclusion requires its exclusion.

This logical operator, a paradox, expresses the gist of the argument material location is incomplete.

• The comprehension restriction of set theory is borne of the essential incompleteness of logic (set theory), math and material reality.

Out at the conceptualized boundaries of universe, presumably the boundaries of existence, Russell’s Paradox bespeaks the essential resistance to finalized location of material things.

This resistance is a deeply embedded component of the perplexing question of consciousness.

Premise 06 – Consciousness is the operational phenomenon of incompleteness within the material universe. The perplexity of location of material things finds its headwaters within consciousness. As with Russell’s Paradox, consciousness, in its act of conceptualizing everything, contradicts itself in terms of its location. This is the waveform of a material particle within the cognitive realm. Consciousness, therefore, expresses material reality distributed so as to perplex location. That consciousness perplexes location is further evidence existence, being uncontainable, approaches but never arrives at universe.

Note – Consciousness as the emergent property of gravitational fields interacting lies embedded within the incompleteness of material location, however, its complexity warrants a separate sub-category for elaboration.

Zermelo’s Axioms of Set Theory

Axiom 7 – Infinity – there is an infinitely large set which contains the empty set in an infinite series of empty sets within empty sets.

Might this be the only set that contains comprehensively without restriction because its member is emptiness? This might imply its obverse: the somethingness of existence, i.e., things, cannot be comprehensively contained, as indicated by Russell’s Paradox.

p.3 – For, in the absence of something like the CP, there is no overriding reason to think that there must be a universal set. This seems to be a denial of universe within a logical context.

But although this deals with the Russell paradox and the paradox of the universal set, it does not tackle the general consistency of the system. This seems to acknowledge that arrival at universe entails paradox (of location)> this implies universe is unreachable because location is incomplete, as the paradox points the way towards extension beyond any supposed universal boundary.

Premise 07 – any specifiable location is incomplete. A close corollary to this is that location is not certifiably measurable, as shown at the quantum level by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Equation.

ZermeIo – I have had to confine myself to pointing out now and then that the “antinomies” discovered so far vanish one and all if the principles here proposed are adopted as a basis. Unrestricted comprehension,i.e., universe, is rooted in the paradox of continuing extension.

Does the undecidability of the Continuum Hypothesis stand as evidence existence is incomplete and that the universe is an abstract concept that expresses a limit?

Does e=mc2 tells us that energy, being mass in distributed waveform, examples the elusiveness of material location, with the implication mass-energy objects are not rendered discretely within an exactly measurable and specifiable location, and are therefore not completely present therein.

The universe keeps itself incomplete because it possesses IMAGINATION, so, the incompleteness reserves creative space for it.

Time travel to the past is thought possible, but to the future not possible. Maybe this is simply because the future doesn’t exist.

There is no simple flow of time in the sense of taking a trip from a departure location to an arrival destination. It’s not like boarding a plane in Ohio and later deplaning in San Francisco.

In the case of taking a trip, we know there’s an extant San Francisco at which we shall arrive according to an estimated timeline. So, our destination is always there even though we’re not always arrived at it.

Maybe that’s not the case with what we call the future. It’s not there, awaiting our arrival. Under such a scheme, everything is an eternal now with past and present merely being changes of perspective.

No. The future, which doesn’t exist, must be created, and the now-universe must do the creating of it.

That’s why you and I have a chance to be utterly important: we have a hand in the creation process. What we do now has a consequential role in what we do in the new state of the world later. Butterfly effect.

There is no future to which we arrive. There is, instead, a newly created NOW which, as we become aware of, already is receding away from us into the past.

At every moment, EXACTLY where we are in spacetime is undecidable. We are incomplete.

Premise 08 – Under this scheme, we identify the future as the ongoing incompleteness of a sum of the actual states of being forever approximating to the limit of universe, which doesn’t exist.

There is no universe, and there is no vision of the future. Instead, there is the creative space of incompletion that is the black hole of possibility that forever absorbs newly aborning states of being but cannot be filled.

Gödel and Heisenberg have for some time been telling us our position is incomplete.

“Know thyself” is a commandment that cannot be fulfilled.

If the conservation laws have matter_energy_motion_spacetime constant in volume, with merely changes of form, then we’re stuck with an eternal and closed universe. Such a universe, re: origin, will always be a mystery.

We can escape this puzzle if we modify the origin narrative so as to scuttle the conservation laws and the eternal and closed universe with them.

If the universe is incomplete, then we can forever serially invent the newly aborning universe by scuttling the future as a fixed point of reference in relation to past and present. We’ll still have essential mystery, but it’ll be a mystery that can be closely approached as incompletion progressively massaged into something new that needs explaining for the sake of exploitation.

This will be a kind of calculus as in taking the area under a curve, an infinite quantity, and pretending its finite by measuring an unlimited number of finite intervals towards the sum of the infinite quantity.

So, the parallel is that the serially creating future is a calculus approach to the origin of the universe with each new understanding the pretense the incompleteness of the universe is not infinite, but instead measurable in an unlimited number of measurements of the new towards the sum of the infinite quantity of the new.

Under this construction, the infinite quantity of the new is another expression for essential, cosmic mystery.

Like water, the infinite new is incompressible. There is no universe.