Hello. I am reaching out because of something I stumbled upon. My text here will contain claims that if found true, are in my opinion of some importance. What I've noticed so far that the claim seems to hold. What I'm seeking is further clarification of the claim, through proper formalization, and verification of the claim through your own consideration, and help pointing out the flaws in this. It could very well be I'm simply mistaken because of some obvious logical fallacy. English is not my native language.

The claims will appear as *wildly* unprovable. This is addressed to a degree in the end of this text. Wherever I say "this is this", read it as a part of my claim.

OK. Let's rock.

Existence is just "implicit knowledge" transforming into "explicit knowledge".

That transformation is experienced as "consciousness".

The "original" implicit knowledge that transforms into explicit knowledge and creates consciousness is the knowledge of our own existence.

This is the only implicit knowledge available to consciousness.

From this, explicit knowledge arises.

The transformation is "done" in a special way of "negation". This has a certain consequence that spans through all systems of rational thought.

The fundamental "concept", or the "original" explicit knowledge is "not existence". Or simply "not this". It arises as a "result" of the implicit knowledge of "this" (of existence). This arising is what consciousness is.

This is also how our conceptual thinking as a way to categorize things is formed through "layers" that form the "tree like" structure of information. The layers of knowledge are "coupled" in a very specific way.

The "root" is our experience of existence. This implicit knowledge is "negated" into "not existence". Thus conscious thought at the very root "level" if it's own has access to two concepts. "Existence" and "not existence". Conscious thought is not capable of recognizing which is implicit and which is explicit. This reflects the problems of existence, knowledge and consciousness. This also creates a serious Paradox. If conscious thought can't recognize implicit knowledge, how can we consciously know we exist? The answer to that paradox is something that forms the whole structure of our logical thinking as a result, and also reveals that hidden structure.

The answer is that we don't consciously know we exist. We "know" in another way. We know by observing existence. This "observing" is the very transformation of the implicit knowledge that we exist into the explicit knowledge of the "negation" and something like "an explicit copy" of the original knowledge. "Existing" is transforming into "the possibility of not existing" and that transformation process is what is experienced as "consciousness". The transformation IS the experience. This is experienced as constant and uninterrupted. This explains why such a thing as "unconsciousness" results in a gap in our knowledge that lasts for the duration of the "unconsciousness", but not as a gap in our experience. For that duration, the implicit knowledge might be there (this is by definition out of our conscious thought), but the transformation process aka "consciousness" is not. So conceptual thought (explicit knowledge) simply is not "present". The experience is felt as continuous.

The important part of course is "how is any of this useful knowledge". It is because the latent structure of conscious thought is that the "root" is the "container" and the "stem" is the "content". However, due to conscious thought having the "blind spot" of being fundamentally incapable to discern between "root" and "stem" (container and content), all knowledge suffers from an "illusion of duality". Conscious thought simply is fundamentally unable to discern that existence is implicit and "not existence" is explicit. What follows is the *perception* that both of the concepts are explicit, but this is not so.

As an example of the usefulness of the "root" and "stem" or "implicit" and "explicit" knowledge structure, I present my interpretation of the well known problems of zero and infinity in mathematics. Please bare with me because I'm pretty bad at math.

If we pose the question "how many", we have to rely on other knowledge. We already assume for example that 1)we exist (this is implicit to consciousness), 2)something else exists (this basic knowledge of what "different" is, is probably some kind of latent knowledge of the "transformation", and it is "realized" as concepts growing in number when a "layer" of conceptual thought is added upon another) 3)things perceived are different from each other (this probably relies on "things" having "properties". This in turn probably relies on the confusion that "existence is *just* a property of a thing", which is created at the root level of consciousness when it is assumed that both "existence" and "non-existence" are explicit, and it is not noticed that existence is *also* implied through the "act of defining" by "negation")
4)things have something in "common" (this is the "faulty recognition" of the "layered" structure in which existence and non existence are perceived as "things" and the presumption that follows is that "things" are "common" because they share a "layer", even when existence is actually fundamentally different.) 5)things are countable (this relies at least on most of the previous ones. Et cetera...

As you can see the structure is "layered". But it is layered in a very special way that can be described with this "implicit" / "explicit" relationship. And as you can see the relationship satisfies the need for a "base" or a "root concept" and as a result of itself, the "relationship of implicit=positive (or "the assumed") , explicit=negation (or "the deduced") is capable of describing the complete structure of logical thought.

This is in my opinion remarkable. It seems (again in my opinion) both logically sound and also it seems to be an observable structure in our ontologies (if I'm using the term right). And it can be used to deduce which proposed ontologies are based on this structure (which I claim is firmly "rooted" in our experience) and if we conclude this structure is valid, or even probable, it can then be used to decrypt our logical thought. And there is no need for base other than experience of existence. From this root all the richness and structure of our thought can be explained.

To get back to the zero and infinity. Why zero is in my opinion weird is because mathematics seems to be devised as a system or a "layer" of our conscious thought that formally answers the question "how many". And because we defined the system as such, it cannot give an answer. It is "implicit" to the question "how many" that things are somehow.. countable. When we add the "value" zero to the system, we "modify the system". Mathematics with positive numbers and zero don't answer to the question "how many" anymore. We have not answered the question of "how many", with the answer "zero" in the same old system anymore. It's a new system. And what's important to notice is that it is "layered" on the "old" system. (whatever that system is). And what's even more important to notice is that the "explicit" knowledge of that new layer is exactly the "negation" of the "implicit" knowledge. And that new "layer" thus rests on the old one and is at the same time "part of the new layer" as an "explicit copy" of the implicit knowledge.

The "implicit" knowledge simply acts as an "unseen container" for the explicit knowledge of the new system and is perceived as explicit knowledge of that system. We don't normally perceive this "container" / "content" relationship because of the "blind spot" in our conscious thought, that treats the "explicit copy of existence" as "common" to the "explicit negation of existence".

OK so zero is the "new implicit" knowledge in the new system. The system is "how many, if any". "how many" is something that can still be explicitly defined within the system. But "if any" is not compatible with the system in a way that could be used to give an explicit answer to everything within that system. Zero is thus a prerequisite for that system. It's existence is needed for the system. The relationship can in my opinion be also described so that Zero in fact as much "contains" the system as much it is a part of it. It's existence is "assumed" in the definition of the system. But as it is falsely perceived *merely* as a "part of the system" due to the "illusion of duality", there is inherent confusion.

The confusion is as follows: we do realize that impossible problems, such as the problem of zero, are not solvable within the old system. What we *don't* realize is that the new system that we create "as an answer" to the impossible problem is a "layer" on top of another old system, and that the "new implicit" knowledge also reveals what the "root layer" for that system is. By adding zero we have "shifted" the problem the old system can't answer, and created a new "layer" that at the same time both "contains zero" (as an explicit copy) and "is contained by zero" (implicitly). Within that system or "layer" it is now possible to answer to the question "how much if any". But question of "how much" is meaningless for the implicit *parts* of that new system.

How the "problem" manifests itself is that the "implicit&explicit" knowledge that was added in order to create the new system (in this case "zero") will be "not well behaved" or will be "nonsensical" in the context of the new layer. This "problem" is hard to express because we haven't yet had a logical structure to represent it. The expression of the "problem", or the capability of logically expressing "the problem" then "falls back" to the root layer of the implicit part of that layer.

This is precisely the problem of conscious thought being aware of it's consciousness. How can conscious thought be conscious of existence (if this structure is given)? This is the implicit knowledge of existence being "falsely assumed as *only* explicit" by conscious thought itself. This is the same false assumption that is present when we try to understand why division by zero is "not working". Or why it seems that multiplication "acts funny" with 0, 1, and then the other numbers. These "why is this not working" moments happen because the whole "rigid" system that we think is mathematics, is actually a layered structure, and each layer is "asking a different thing". It's built upon "hidden assumptions". And those assumptions all rest on the base of existence. And the implicit or the "assumed" knowledge of each "layer" is *both* a prerequisite for that specific layer *and* a part of that layer. And the implicit part (or rather the explicit copy of that part) does not "behave well" in the complete context of the "new layer" it itself "defines".

This idiom can be used as a tool to try and reverse engineer mathematics and such. This technique is what I've used on these examples.

Infinity is not a value. Infinity is a concept that means "more". This concept seems to be based on both the definition of "one" thing (which I think seems to be the basis for all amounts) and "combining" that concept of "more" on that concept of "one" (which is "not more") thus creating a "layer" within which "one"s are placed on a row, towards infinity. Infinity for how I see it is just the concept of "how to place the finite "gaps" between zero and one in such a way that the infinite number line is formed". It can also be seen as a necessary *byproduct* of creation a system where there are other values than zero and one.

One is just the concept of "something" (as in opposed to "nothingness" of zero.) Maths I think is layered so that "zero" is "implied" when the "0 to 1" layer is created and "infinity" is implied when the "0 to infinity" layer is created. I don't know enough about math to confirm any of these "layers" but to me it seems completely obvious that the principle holds. And the principle, it seems, is: "if the problem cannot be solved within the system, you need a new system to get an answer". The new system *by definition* will be "well behaved" only in the context of the root layer, but also in a specific way such that whatever you add in order to "create the new layer" will NOT be well behaved *in the context of the new layer*".

The "addition" is also done so that we end up with "an explicit copy" of the original implied concept and "an explicit negation" of the implied.

This structure can be observed in our logical thought and how we create categories of things. The final observation through these "layers" is that of existence itself. Of that root layer we can no longer "go deeper" and we can only observe the root layer "non conceptually". The system of defining cannot define itself. That is a hard limit. But we are not JUST a system of defining things. The structure implies that at the very root we simply "are" the experience of existence through "implication". We "are" the observation of experience. This experience reveals our thought's "hidden container" which remains as the one undeniable "fact", existence.

We "add" an "explicit copy of existence" and pair it with its "explicit negation". What we don't realize when we do is that what's behind "cogito, ergo sum". It's not the "cogito" that is the "problem" and in a way it's not even the "sum". It's that we don't realize what the "ergo" *actually* means. By (my) definition it includes the notion that the "sum" in the context of "cogito" is just an "explicit copy of sum", implied through the very act of "cogito". And the very "act of cogito", the implication of "sum", as far as I'm concerned is "the transformation" of our experience into a concept that cogito can use. The transformation is "hidden" in the "ergo". Descartes had the concept right way around. He could see that thought implies existence. But as far as I understand he could not define the "how". This structure I propose is the "how". If this structure can be observed to be "true" (note some implications to falsifiability in the end), it's implications are in my opinion quite sbstantial. And in my own experience this can be observed.

It is in my opinion notable and true that this "layered" construction of existence and consciousness does not rule out determinism. In my opinion this structure supports it.

If this structure is proven real or at least proven to be able to explain these "weird gaps" like the problem of zero and the "problem" of consciousness, (and from my viewpoint it most undeniably is able to explain them) , it also tells us something about ourselves. I think verification would place supporters of free will in a difficult position. In my opinion, free will does not "truly" exist. We are conscious machines that because of this structure of "knowing" can never fully understand what existence is. The illusion of free will is I think somehow "built into us" and I have strong suspicion that the "primal confusion" of "container" that also "contains itself as a concept" within the system it itself creates is to blame.

Then I will have to address the problem of proof in relation to the "nature" of proof.

If you have read so far, you will maybe understand the position, what is claimed, and what is used as the "proof" of that claim. You should understand how this "implicit proof" is fundamentally different than any "explicit proof". You should also understand what "denying" this "implicit proof" means. You should understand "how" that "denial" has no bearing on the "validity" of the claim. You should also understand "how" the "proof" and the "claim" are "the same thing" (and "how" they are "the different thing").

To make it more clear - what is the "commonness" between the "proof" and the "claim" is the "layer they rest on", which is by definition "the implicit negation" of the "layer that is not assumed". And the "layer that is not assumed" is just "the explicit negation" of that "implicit, positive, 'given'", or "the layer that is assumed 'as given'". This makes it so that what is "common" between the "implicit and the explicit parts" of the claim, from our point of view is "the proof". And it also logically follows from this very structure that the "fact we want proof", IS "the proof". It just also means that that "proof" is all we will ever get. We will not get what is commonly thought of as proof (based solely on explicit knowledge). But we will get "proof" ("rooted on implicit knowledge", and "containing the explicit knowledge) and in fact we can not NOT get it. The "point" is that it's not what is commonly thought as proof. The "proof" is that by redefining the question and finding out exactly "what is it that is asked" when you ask, through logical reasoning: "what is proof", you will inevitably discover this structure.

It is a VERY different way of understanding what proof *actually* even is.

But in my honest opinion this thing

Presents a sound logical structure that can be observed "through the idioms of "container/content - relationship" and "explicit negation of the implicit assumption *transforms* into an apparent "explicit positive and explicit negative". These idioms can be observed in the way logical structure seems to be ordered. Most prominent in my opinion is the "apparent" fact that no system can describe itself through the language of itself.

implies a fundamental "non falsifiability" as related to what is commonly thought of as falsifiability, because if we use "the implicit experience of existence turned explicit knowledge of experience" as "proof" of the "experience of existence", the two categories "implicit" and "explicit" are fundamentally different. The "proof" does not somehow magically become actual proof. The original concept of falsifiability is thus simply "extended" to correctly handle "implicit" and "explicit" knowledge.

instead itself the structure implies an "extended falsifiability" that is comparing this "structure" you can observe in the "implicit" / "explicit" relationship through your own experience of existence to the "structure" logical thought seems to be built in. This extension is done in such a way that the "original" meaning of falsifiability (which considers explicit knowledge) is preserved, and means of handling implicit knowledge is added upon that meaning. AND This "extension" is itself an representation of the "container/content", "layered structure". If understood correctly, it presents as "opposites" the "implicit falsifiability" firmly rooted in the very experience of existence itself and "that which is not implicit falsifiability" (falsifiability that deals with explicit knowledge) as simply a byproduct of how our logical thought "works", or how it is "built".

I'll try to illustrate some of the logic of this structure. I am not a logician. I have done some cursory research on the matter and this can be a flawed representation of what I am proposing, but keeping that in mind, here's my interpretation of the "if a then b" - construct.

My proposition is this:
The claim "if a then b" in generalized format, with this "structure" applied, "contains" a hidden assumption" that takes the appearance of "not b". It would also "contain the hidden assumption that "a=true" which is meaningless in the context of the claim, and exists as a "container" for the claim. The hidden assumption of "not b" is a representation of the "if". It's the "possibility of not b".

This "hiding" of these assumptions is somehow the "blind spot" of our logical thought.

And my claim is that this all logically follows of our own experience of consciousness and how we make sense of the world.

So to formally represent my own interpretation of "cogito, ergo sum" in the form of "if a then b":

"If we exist, we are conscious."

This, if that structure is applied, in my opinion holds. But if the structure is applied, the claim takes the general form of:

A then B or not B

This is merely *perceived* as "if A then B" from the viewpoint of the argument that resides in the "layer" that is contained in A. The "if" can in fact be thought of as the "creation event" of the "layer" "B or not B". And the "creation event" or the "transformation" of "A" into "B or not B" just "naturally happens" by us existing all the time.

So if this thing is sound, it turns out "cogito ergo sum" really is "the question" in disguise. "To be or not to be". which I find completely astonishing myself. This also in my opinion explains why zen koans take the form of paradoxical riddles. They're showing that logic is no escape from logic. And they're trying to point out that "something" is simply "assumed". All questions, *even those that cannot be answered with logic* if this structure is applied, will simply "fall back" into the undeniable "fact" of the existence of the argument. And those that *can* be answered with logic will remain perfectly valid

Speaking of arguments - the argument for applying the structure is that it in my opinion explains many "unexplainable" things. And if my "gut feeling" is correct, it could in theory even allow constructing something like "a grand unified theory of logical thought", and one that is based on experiential knowledge, and one that seamlessly intertwines our experience of existence into the patterns our thought. (I know that is a pretty steep claim). And if this "structure" really holds, it would offer a completely novel, formalized way to approach "impossible" problems such as those in the forefront of math. The generalized approach for "impossible problems" would then be that instead of trying to find out the answer to the question inside the rules of the system, what *actually* should be done is "extend the system" in a controlled manner. Find out what the system actually is and extend it using this structure.


Well, this is just my own attempt to properly formalize what I stumbled upon myself. If I can observe this, it is possible for others to observe this too. I am not a scientist. I don't know the proper terms for the concepts I'm talking about. I have some vague ideas of what epistemology and ontology and logic deal with, and I can recognize that this is something in that territory. I would very much appreciate any help on the further formalization and possible verification of this.

Thank you for your consideration.