No, I’m a philosopher myself and im writing a book on the ground and essnce of being and Being, so naturally, I’ve been contemplating the trinity for a long time now. I really despise the new age, to be quite honest. I don’t make assertions without reason, they do.

of course the Trinity is logically coherent, although, not the Trinity as envisioned by Christian theists. There are three Trinities which precede the existence of our conception threeness, and the first involves Absolute Unlimited Memory, Absolute Time, and Absolute Subjectivity (Passive). This is the Passive and Feminine aspect of Being, i.e. The Mother. Then there is the Second Trinity, that being Limited Memory, Absolute Will, and Absolute Imagination. This is the Active and Masculine aspect of Being, i.e. The Father. And then there is the Third Trinity, which is composed of motion (I.e. objectivity), subjectivity, and perception (i.e. the bridge between them) i.e. The Synthesis of the Father and Mother, the Child, or, the "Christ," which is, you.

'to be is to be the value of a variable,' yet that which possesses the potential to contain a limited value within itself, has being, for that which possesses an essence, i.e. the potential to contain value, cannot not have being. that is to say that being isn't predicated of empty variables, but predicated of variables which correspond to unique essences.

But then why does the symbol of "nothingness" as a word point to something that we find meaningful, i.e. something that humans deem to hold an ontological value? Nothingness might be a false concept, but it is yet meaningful conceptually (rather than pure gibberish).

this is a very good question, yes, in the relative sense, 'nothingness' points to something with an essence, albeit a purely abstract and conceptual essence which exists in the realms of abstraction in relation to other things; thus we must distinguish between non-existence in the relative sense, which exists as an abstract concept in relation to other existent things and concepts, and Non-Existence in the absolute sense which cannot exist in relation to Existence, for therein would lie a contradiction, that being the co-existence of both Absolute Non-Existence and Absolute Existence, and if Non-Existence exists in relation to existence, and existence is born out of and contained within Non-Existence, there lies another contradiction, that being the the fact that something Non-Existent cannot possess the potential to contain something existent within itself, for otherwise it would have an Essence and thereby be Existent as opposed to Non-Existent.

As to the symbol of "0" representing potentiality, how again can we then go about saying there is one potentiality rather than two, or none? — javra

since that potentiality is necessarily beyond space, it cannot have a quantity more than one. Of course, within itself, my varying concepts can exist in the abstract sense of the word, but they are not mutually exclusive in relation to the whole; therefore, the non-local substratum of potentiality is a unity which contains multiplicity within itself, but not a multiplicity which contains a unity within itself, if that make sense? You're really forcing me to understand my own conception of what is and what is not here, and I must thank you, for I've been posting on philosophy groups on facebook for a few years now and there aren't very many seasoned philosophers in those groups, to say the least, so I've never been forced to elaborate in great detail, my conception of reality.

How then would you make sense of the law of identity specifying that "nothingness" = "nothingness"? This where "nothingness" is defined as absence of essence. It's still a = a, but it no longer seems to be 1 = 1 by the standard you've just provided.

(btw, non-quantity can be givens other than nothingness; examples can include those of Nirvana. And I grant that such latter examples do hold essence. But this is likely a very different topic.) — javra

I wouldn't say that the law of identity applies to nothingness, because the variable a cannot point to something which does not possess an essence, that is to say that something with an essence, or rather, the potential to point to an essence, which is in itself, an essence, cannot point to something which does not possess an essence (i.e. nothingness)

I wrote a comment of my own about five comments up in which I touched on a few of these issues, maybe not thoroughly enough, but at least in some detail.

Isn't this confounding some mathematical models of physics with mathematics per se? For one example, we could address one potentiality as contrasted with two potentialities. — javra

I'm one to support this perspective. I didn't mention the LNC due to the pesky modern notion of dialetheism, which states that the LNC is not a universal law/principle. And its rather difficult to disprove. But yes, when it comes down to it, I agree with your quoted stance. — javra

I suppose that mathematics has its first appearance in the Law of Identity, not a = a, but 1 = 1, and that 1 points to something which has an ontological value, that is, an essence, and an essence which is equal to itself and not equal to its antithesis so long as it exists, so according to my understanding, the law of non-contradiction is contained conceptually as a subset within the the law of identity, meaning that if the law of identity is eternal, so is the law of non-contradiction, and this is because the law of identity (a = a) is identical with the the identity (a = a ≠ -a).

In terms of the difference between physics and mathematics itself, which seems to the basis of physics, and logic the basis of mathematics, their cannot exist waves which are either on or off, without the prior existence of mathematics and therefore logic. According to my understanding, the entirety of mathematics presupposes physics, and also, when a wave is actualized as opposed to not, the law of identity becomes 1 = 1 as opposed to a = a, and is therefore, mathematical as opposed to logical. Have I answered your question? speaking of this stuff is new to me, however, I've thought about the laws of thought, ironically, quite a bit. :)

While criticisms are of course anticipated wherever warranted, I mostly mentioned this perspective because I’m curious to see if anyone knowledgeable of theoretical mathematics knows of any such maths that are fully independent of the notions of 1 and/or 0. — javra

I am certainly no mathematician, but my presumption is that both one and zero stand for mathematical waves of a particular frequency which are either in a state of potentiality (i.e. 0), or in a state of actuality (i.e. 1). According to my understanding, there is no such thing as a mathematical wave which is both actualized and not actualized at the same time and in the same respect, so the law of non-contradiction extends its reach down into the mircocosm and beyond into the omnipresent field of non-locality which precedes and contains all waves and therefore, all actualized things in relative space and time.

It seems to me that, from the perspective of the absolute, logic was discovered, not invented, and mathematics was invented, not discovered, but from the perspective of the transient part that is man, both logic and mathematics were discovered, not invented.


It is often presumed that one is eternally equal to itself and that therefore the mathematical identity, one plus one equals two, is most assuredly, eternally true, and that therefore, the entire system of mathematics, which follows by necessity from the truthiness of this supposedly absolute identity, is eternally true as well; but does not the equality one equals one beg the question, “one what?” What does the number one refer or point to? Must the number one point to the essence of some particular thing, whether it be conceptual and purely abstract, or concrete and spatially extended in its nature, that actually exists, or can it point to nothing at all and therefore exist eternally in itself apart from anything else as an abstract number which refers to nothing that floats by its lonesome self in a sea of nothingness. I suppose this raises the question then, can an abstract value which retains its identity over time exist apart from time? If it cannot exist apart from time, it cannot exist apart from essence; and if it can hold true apart from time, or memory, how does the number one as a purely abstract value which points to nothing retain its identity? Does the number one necessarily have ontological value in the absolute sense of the word, or does it not? And if one can be a reference to nothing, that is, something which does not possess an essence, yet still remains equal to itself, as such, is not mathematics in the absence of ontology then akin to calculating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin and therefore meaningless? Relatively speaking, a number cannot exist apart from the thing or concept in which it represents, so wherefore originated the idea that numbers can exist in themselves apart from at least one other existent thing that is ontologically one in itself? Do not wish to argue that mathematics does not have practical value in the relative sense of the word, but that mathematics has practical value only when the value of one refers to something ontological, that is, something which has actual being, whether it be a physical object or an abstract concept, and that therefore, mathematics should root its foundations, not in the clouds of nothingness, as is currently so, but in being itself in the non-relative sense. Essentially, if there is not a field of mathematics which concerns mathematics as it relates to ontology, there should be, because without ontology, mathematics is meaningless.

Further, if mathematics has its root in the law of identity 1 = 1, how is it that more complex algebraic identities were abstracted from it, or do they follow by necessity from it and are thus true so long as the law of identity has been true? According to my philosophy, between the law of identity and law of non-contradiction and mathematics and physics, there lies, necessarily, subjectivity, that is, consciousness, for one cannot go from the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction to more complex mathematical identities without the comparison of at least two abstract concepts and an abstraction of a third from them, that is, an intellect.