Okay, I’m quite confused, so firstly, tell me if my interpretations of what you’re trying to say is correct.
Absolute Intent
Are you trying to say that this is God? That, the opposite of eternity being a singularity, is–being charged with a so-called “intent”–in effect, an all-creating, omniscient entity?
Self-Producing Existence
The space-time continuum.
Potential
The probability of quantum decoherence being manifested from a suspended “self-producing” ‘luminiferous aether’; i.e. the space-time continuum.
If “abso. intet” can only equal itself in the context of written symbols, then it is impossible to derive any real meaning from it. It is a meaningless string of symbols.
If may I add something concerning “A explanation”!
In order to present “a explanation”, so that it is obvious for the “understander” you cannot rely on a perfect philosophy alone no it must have a perfect psychology too.
Example: If you start an explanation of “genesis” with “before there was nothing”, even if the statement is true, you kind of tell the reader from the very beginning, that there is a before.
Because the word “before” singnalises to the brain an actual existence of “before”
So no matter how logical or true the “explanation” really is, you cannot convince him, because the brain signals a feelin of doubt.
Another example is “Non-existing” where would prefere to call only “non”, and with this I at the same time create an effect in the word, since “non” should really be “none” there is a small but important effect, the feeling of something missing!
Something for anyone trying to explain to consider more, maybe!
I have linked this to several philosophy forums, but no respons, I can see that there have been visitors, but please, philosophy is what i do, give a challenge or compliment.
Do you notice the effect I tried to create by the word “at” placing a “moment”
And I added numbers to the “occured”
If you read them they seem the occur after each other witin a moment.