I like the analogy, but I wonder why you think the nominal is balanced with the phenomenal or with a shade of difference, why being is balanced with seeming? I think they are connected by language, where language is thought of as a road that leads up and down the hill (to steal a very old thought), the road is the same up or down the hill and really all we have is the road, with its twists and turns sharp inclines and steep declines. — Cavacava

I like the way you think; but again my language lets me down. I was trying to say that everything and nothing are the same, because they are equally impossible, thereby making them both negative, giving me a positive from the double.

I understand that language is important, to some more than others. But to help with understanding the zero, I was liberal with my language, and yes, I just did it again. Zero is physically impossible, and anything equally so. If you managed to make something from nothing, then that something would be everything. No if you put zero on one end of a lever, and everything on the other, you'd have a propeller; and how quick would you be to point that out. Zero would equal absolute zero, no dark, and no space; no dimension at all. Anything would have to start somewhere; where? There will be rules for sub-atomic particles, that we don't yet understand; although, they are only sub-atomic from our perspective. A little less anger makes the world a better place.

Samuel, I share the exact same views as yours. I understood perfectly everything you said. It is uncanny when two minds that embrace the paradox cross (virtual) paths. — oranssi

Thank-you, it is refreshing to be understood.

The universe, as we see it, is not infinite. It has a start date, and a dubiously predicted end date. But as a dimension of 'The Universe', we cannot disprove infinity.

You first lose me here. Why would the concepts of zero and everything be impossible on your view? — Terrapin Station

Not zero and everything, zero and anything. They are not only impossible, in my view; but also in a physical universe. It is explained more fully on my blog, but these are by nature, very difficult concepts to grasp.

I'm smart enough to know I'm stupid, but not stupid enough to think I'm smart. Without modesty, me.

Human rights are expansive in direct proportion to the amount of humans contributing to the laws.; barring a benevolent dictator. That's why democracies are more liberal than autocracies.

It's in the eye of the beholder. Then the beholders breed, and the field of beauty diverges. It expands into more, but narrower fields, as the beholders multiply.

That's because there is no nothing entity, it's impossible.

I just realised that the flea doesn't make much sense; this is because I am increadibly lazy, and just pasted from my own work. I had made the connection of a faint spark, which studies showed to be present at the conception of mice and humans, to the big bang, from another perspective.

'Nothing' is impossible, equally so is 'something'. This double negative ensures a positive, and everything exists in a state of flux, within the fulcrum. A fuller explanation may be found at www.samuelviii.com