Would it be logical, if reason were synonymous with difference pre-reality, explaining reality? If this were the case, reality would then be the divide of reason and difference, which is error - difference is divide.
Assuming reality is this error, could the solution then be to retain onto reason as one, but replicate the divide?
Could you restate that or define your terms in some more elaborate way?
Yes. My research into reality has told me that reason and difference are identical relative to absence (which logically has to exist before presence); in other words, relative to absence difference and no difference are the same - in having then being made separate from no difference, relative to presence difference exists twice.
My solution therefore is to suggest that by recreating no difference, one then has balance (2 : 2 ratio of difference and no difference).
The only force that can replicate is anti-being; the problem that this raises however is the division of action and the applier of action.
logical contradiction:
You are saying that everything is identical compared to nothing or nothingness, when there does exist existence, so there is not the case that there is no existence. There cannot be a state prior to it which even if stateless, is not the thing which itself becomes existence. Ergo whatever we say was ‘before’ existence, is itself an existence – so there is no absence of existence even when there are no things existent.
Easier if we think of it like water and things as like waves [i.e. thereof].
Good analogy, about water. However I believe there is an anti, an impossibility which is to exist again. If the universe represents the possible (although I accept the idea that it maybe doesn’t), reason orders that the possible must belong to anything, therefore what exists external to the universe must be allowed to be known.
Where is Satyr when you need him.
still stood in the horsebox wearing blinkers probably. 
Shelly
Interesting notion. There is nothing about a stone on a string which denotes a centrifugal force once rotated. There is also nothing apart from or outside of the said items, which denote the force.
something existent to something non-existent = the given something does not exist, or have material form. So i’ll return to my water analogy, but say that the water itself does not exist. We are not making something from nothing, because there are no such things. In a way its gotta be simple at base, if you arrange energy it will take on that form, but it doesn’t exist until it is given such behaviours [which all forces are]. force and energy are innately ‘0’.
Interesting notion. There is nothing about a stone on a string which denotes a centrifugal force once rotated. There is also nothing apart from or outside of the said items, which denote the force.
something existent to something non-existent = the given something does not exist, or have material form. So i’ll return to my water analogy, but say that the water itself does not exist. We are not making something from nothing, because there are no such things. In a way its gotta be simple at base, if you arrange energy it will take on that form, but it doesn’t exist until it is given such behaviours [which all forces are]. force and energy are innately ‘0’.
[/quote]
Something can’t come from nothing, that’s true (in the context that is if the something is to be understood as something). My concern is ability on its own; there’s no means to understand something without duplication, and duplication meaning division has to mean the need to resolve. I’ll admit that the need to resolve in of itself doesn’t necessarily mean proof of a source of existence that’s omnipotent, but then perhaps the truth of resolution is the recognition that the resolver is the same as reason of the resolution.
What if the duplicate is the same as that which it is copying, as opposed to making a double of a thing. I mean, going back to the everything is water thing, then when your brain and or consciousness copies something, both it and the object it is copying are both made of ‘water’. So they are a mirror of one another in a more magical way, as if reality itself is the philosophers stone, consider; to inform, to communicate, _these things must have an essential ‘water’ or ‘mutually reflecting plasticity’! Otherwise there can be no communication nor information, when we know for sure there is at least information, ergo there must also be communication and a communion betwixt all things.
‘water’ = the fundament of said ability. …and of existence 
Absence has to exist before presence? Because of logic? What grade are you in? Are you doing poetry or philosophy? Logic doesn’t dictate things. It describes them.
My latest stage of understanding is that a replication exists so that need can exist twice, which then means the replicator can allow itself to be free; at least I think this is what the source of existence intends, however in practice this intent isn’t possible without inversion - the source of existence (or the true original absence) was never able to fulfil this goal, therefore presence (the universe) is in fact going to have to be responsible for establishing the ability of independence, via replicating need.
Presence can’t replicate, because that’s the ability of absence; the solution therefore has to mean something such as recreating absence. In any case, the universe itself isn’t what was originally intended.
if presence is to be real, then absence must exist before it; presence is two, and two can never logically be before one.