Situations that may exist;
(1) = Unless proven otherwise there may exist a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would cause one to not want to feel it or risk feeling it no matter what, except in situations in which the alternative(s) to such a feeling, if any exist, is or are more unwanted.
(2) = Unless proven otherwise there may exist a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would cause one to want to feel it or gamble on feeling it no matter what, except in situations in which the alternative(s) to such a feeling, if any exist, is or are more wanted.
To coherently read the paragraph below with the forward slashes, “/”, pick either the italicized word(s) to the left or right of the forward slash and continue to pick the word(s) on the same side of the forward slash as one continues reading the paragraph below. Then re-read the paragraph below picking the word(s) on the opposite side to completely see what the paragraph below means.
(3) = Unless proven otherwise it may be that (1)'s feeling and (2)'s feeling don’t exist and as a result there would be no feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would make one not-want/want to feel it or risk/gamble-on feeling it no matter what, except in situations in which the alternative(s) to such a feeling, if any exist, is or are more unwanted/wanted.
If (1)'s feeling exists, then (2)'s feeling can’t exist and if (2)'s feeling exists, then (1)'s feeling can’t exist;
For the purposes of more clearly proving that if (1)'s feeling exists, then (2)'s feeling can’t exist and if (2)'s feeling exists, then (1)'s feeling can’t exist, the definition of (1)'s and (2)'s feeling can be rephrased;
(1)'s feeling, which is “a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would cause one to not want to feel it or risk feeling it no matter what, except in situations in which the alternative(s) to such a feeling, if any exist, is or are more unwanted” has, by definition, nothing that would make one want to feel it or risk feeling it except if there were alternative(s) to it which were feelings that one did not want even more. As a result of the previous statement, (1)'s feeling could be rephrased as “a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would have nothing that would make one want to feel it or risk feeling it except if there were alternative(s) to feeling it which were feelings that one did not want even more”. Additionally, since (2)'s feeling has nothing to do with whether alternative(s) to feeling (1)'s feeling which are feelings that one does not want even more than (1)'s feeling, (1)'s feeling can be further rephrased as “a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would have nothing that would make one want to feel it or risk feeling it”.
(2)'s feeling, which is “a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would cause one to want to feel it or gamble on feeling it no matter what, except in situations in which the alternative(s) to such a feeling, if any exist, is or are more wanted” has, by definition, nothing that would make one not want to feel it or gamble on feeling it except if there were alternative(s) to it which were feelings that one wanted even more. As a result of the previous statement, (2)'s feeling could be rephrased as “a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would have nothing that would make one not want to feel it or gamble on feeling it except if there were alternative(s) to feeling it which were feelings that one wants even more”. Additionally, since (1)'s feeling has nothing to do with whether alternative(s) to feeling (2)'s feeling which are feelings that one wants even more than (2)'s feeling, (2)'s feeling can be further rephrased as “a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would have nothing that would make one want to feel it or gamble on feeling it”.
(1)'s feeling, “a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would have nothing that would make one want to feel it or risk feeling it” can not exist if (2)'s feeling, “a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would have nothing that would make one not want to feel it or gamble on feeling it”, exists and (2)'s feeling can not exist if (1)'s feeling exists. The reason for this is as follows;
(1)'s feeling is definitionally a feeling that has nothing that would make one want to feel it or risk feeling it while (2)'s feeling is definitionally a feeling that has nothing that would make one not want to feel it or gamble on feeling it. If (1)'s feeling exists then nothing exists that would make one want to feel or risk (1)'s feeling. If (2)'s feeling exists then nothing exists that would make one not want to feel or gamble on (2)'s feeling.
If (1)'s feeling exists then (2)'s feeling couldn’t since (1)'s feeling is a feeling that has nothing that would make one want to feel or risk feeling (1)'s feeling while (2)'s feeling is a feeling that has nothing that would make one NOT want to feel or gamble on feeling it. If (1)'s feeling exists then there is nothing that would make one want to feel or risk feeling it. However, if (2)'s feeling exists then there is nothing that would make one NOT want to feel or gamble on feeling it. If something such as (1)'s feeling exists it means that there exists nothing that would make one want to feel or risk feeling (1)'s feeling, then something such as (2)'s feeling existing would be contradictory and thus impossible since (2)'s feeling existing means that there is nothing that exists that would make one NOT want to feel or gamble on feeling (2)'s feeling. Yet if there exists nothing that would make one want to feel or risk feeling (1)'s feeling(as the definition of (1)'s feeling states), then that means that one would not want to feel or risk feeling (1)'s feeling in order to feel or gamble on feeling (2)'s feeling. However, if one would not want to feel or risk feeling (1)'s feeling in order to feel or gamble on feeling (2)'s feeling, than that means that there is SOMETHING that exists that would make one NOT want to feel or gamble on feeling (2)'s feeling, contrary to the definition of (2)'s feeling, meaning that (2)'s feeling can’t exist if (1)'s feeling exists. Furthermore, if (2)'s feeling can’t exist if (1)'s feeling exists, then that means if (2)'s feeling exists, then (1)'s feeling doesn’t since if (1)'s feeling did exist, then (2)'s feeling would not be able to.
So only one of the three situations (1), (2), or (3) can exist and also one of the three situations has to exist because those three situations are all the possible situations regarding a feeling that, if one knew how it felt, it would either [cause one to not want to feel it or risk feeling it no matter what, except in situations in which the alternative(s) to such a feeling, if any exist, is or are more unwanted] or [cause one to want to feel it or gamble on feeling it no matter what, except in situations in which the the alternative(s) to such a feeling, if any exist, is or are more wanted].
What one should do if one does not know which of the three situations (1), (2), or (3) exist;
If situation (3) or (2) exists then no matter what feelings one gets that one doesn’t want, one may be able to get feelings that one does want that makes up for it since there is no feeling that one doesn’t want so much that no feeling that one wants will make up for it if situation (3) or (2) exists. However, if situation (1) exists then there is a feeling that one doesn’t want so much that no feeling that one wants will make up for it, according to the definition of (1). If one acts as if situation (3) or (2) exists and it does, one is potentially fine. If one acts as if situation (3) or (2) exists and it doesn’t, (thus situation (1) exists since only situations (1), (2), or (3) are possible) then one will be at risk for feeling (1)'s feeling. If one acts as if (1) exists and it does, one would logically try to avoid feeling it. If one acts as if (1) exists and it doesn’t, one would be being unnecessarily trying to avoid feeling it.
One should make one’s decision on how to act based on comparing worst case scenarios since if one doesn’t act based on comparing worst case scenarios one risks [a risk that one doesn’t want to risk because of (1) being at stake] regretting not comparing worst case scenarios if the worst case scenarios do happen and one doesn’t know whether the worst case scenarios will happen or not. The worst case scenario for acting as if (3) or (2) exists is that one may be at risk for feeling (1)'s feeling while the worst case scenario for acting as if (1) exists is that one would be be unnecessarily trying to avoid feeling it. The worst worst case scenario would be that one may be at risk for feeling (1)'s feeling so one should choose the scenario that has the least worst case scenario, which is acting as if (1) exists.
The segue;
One is conscious now, therefore becoming and being conscious is possible. If one can’t prove that it isn’t possible for one to be unconscious then as a possible result one becoming unconscious may be possible. It may then be possible to be conscious again if one can’t prove that it is impossible to be conscious again after one becomes unconscious. The possibility of whatever made one conscious before may remain possible forever if one cannot prove that it doesn’t remain possible forever. Thus one might have an infinite amount of time for the potential possibility of becoming conscious again to happen. Any possibility given infinite time has a 99.99…% repeating (the 9’s never stop) chance of happening again continuously (Event occurs one after the other for infinity with some time in between most likely). The reason why any possibility given infinite time has a 99.99…% repeating chance of happening again continuously is as follows;
Any possibility has a probability that is non-zero. Example: 0.000032%, 84%, 0.51%. A probability that is non-zero given some finite amount of time, increases as time increases. Example: Events A, B, and C have probabilities of 0.000032%, 84%, and 0.51% respectively (respectively in this case means that A’s probability = 0.000032%, B’s probability = 84%, C’s probability = 0.51%). A’s, B’s, and C’s probabilities are for every 5 seconds. The chances of Events A, B, and C NOT happening every 5 seconds is 99.999968%, 16%, and 99.49% respectively. The chances of Events A, B, and C NOT happening every 10 seconds would be 99.999968% ^ 2, 16% ^ 2, and 99.49% ^ 2 which is 99.99993600001024%, 2.56%, and 98.982601% respectively. The chances of Events A, B, and C happening every 10 seconds would be 100% - 99.99993600001024%, 100% - 2.56%, and 100% - 98.982601% which is 0.00006399998976%, 97.44%, and 1.017399% which is greater than the chances Events A, B, and C had for happening every 5 seconds which were 0.000032%, 84%, and 0.51% respectively. Therefore any probability that is non-zero given some finite amount of time, increases as time increases.
If time is infinite, the probability increase is also infinite. Therefore any possibility given infinite time has a 99.99…% repeating chance of happening again continuously.
Also, when one is unconscious, one isn’t conscious of time so there would be no perceived time difference from the perspective of one who is to become unconscious and then conscious again.
Given that one hasn’t proven it not to be possible to be conscious again over and over for infinity and possibly have (1) and/or (1)'s feeling be a possibility of happening, one should take making (1) and/or (1)'s feeling as unlikely as possible as the ultimate priority.
[b]In order to help one make (1) as unlikely as possible the following information’s conclusion may be helpful;
Time cannot be infinitely divisible;[/b]
Any known amount of time, such as 2 seconds, if it were infinitely divisible - would have infinitely smaller amounts of time that it would have to pass before 2 seconds could pass. It would have infinitely smaller amounts of time that it would have to pass if it were infinitely divisible because if one divide 2 seconds infinitely one get continuously smaller amounts of time. For example, 2 seconds divided by 2 equals 1 second, 1 second divided by 2 equals .5 seconds, .5 seconds divided by 2 equals .25 seconds, and infinitely so on getting smaller and smaller. Before 2 seconds can pass, 1 second has to pass, before 1 second can pass, .5 seconds have to pass, before .5 seconds can pass, .25 seconds must pass, and infinitely so on. No known amount of time would be able to pass if it were infinitely divisible because an infinite amount of smaller amounts of time would first have to pass. An infinite amount of smaller amounts of time can’t pass because one would have to pass an infinite amount of things, which is impossible because there is no end to an infinite amount of things. Therefore time cannot be infinitely divisible, and time must have indivisible units of itself.
Nothing could have existed for an infinite amount of time periods into the past;
Something exists now. Something could not have existed for an infinite amount of time periods into the past because if something existed for an infinite amount of time periods into the past then an infinite amount of time must have passed before something existed which is impossible. An infinite amount of time must have passed before something existed if something existed for an infinite amount of time into the past because starting from now, and counting the number of indivisible time units in the past starting from the first one before now, then onto the second one before now, and then the third one before now, and so on, one would never stop counting. There would be an infinite number of indivisible time units starting from now and counting the number of indivisible time units in the past starting from the first one before now. If there were an infinite number of indivisible time units starting from now and counting the number of indivisible time units in the past starting from the first one before now, then an infinite amount of time would have to finish before it could exist now in the present, which is impossible because an infinite amount of time is has no end and therefore could never finish.
Nothing could have existed for an infinite amount of time periods into the past, and there couldn’t have been an infinite amount of things that existed sequentially (one before the other) before that which exists now. There couldn’t have been an infinite amount of things that existed sequentially before that which exists now because then an infinite amount of things, one before the other, would have to exist before that which exists now would be able to exist which is impossible since an infinite amount of things, one before the other, would never be able to finish having everything exist since an infinite amount of things never ends. If an infinite amount of things existed sequentially before that which exists now then an infinite amount of sequential things, one before the other, would have to exist one before the other before that which exists now would be able to exist because starting from the first thing that existed before that which exists now. Then onto the second thing that existed before that which exists now, and then onto the third, one would never finish counting, leading to an infinite amount of things that one would have to have finished existing, one before the other, before that which exists now could exist, starting from the first thing that existed before that which exists now. Therefore there must have been a first thing to exist since there must have been a finite number of things before that which exists now and nothing could have existed for an infinite amount of time periods into the past, and before that first thing, by definition, was nothing if nothing wasn’t the first thing. Given that causality (things causing other things) seems to be a law, nothingness most likely caused the first thing if it wasn’t the first thing and if it was the first thing then the noothingness caused the second thing, and the second thing caused the third thing, and so on - causing the beginning of existence.
How and why did nothingness begin to create existence;
Nothingness is either nowhere or everywhere. If nothingness is nowhere then not only is something everywhere but nothingness doesn’t exist if it is nowhere, so it must be everywhere. If nothingness is everywhere then it must at least in the three spatial dimensions, length, width, and height. Anything quantifiable (which means able to be expressed in terms of quantity or amount) such as the three spatial dimensions, length, width, and height must have indivisible units of itself because it can’t be infinitely divisible.
Anything quantifiable such as the three spatial dimensions, length, width, and height can’t be infinitely divisible because if it was then it wouldn’t be able to ever be quantifiable. It wouldn’t be able to ever be quantifiable because any quantity such as 2 of something, if infinitely divisible, would be able to divide it infinitely and still have the 2 of something exist. 2 of something, such as 2 units of length, width, or height wouldn’t be able to exist if it were infinitely divisible because if 2 of something exists, 1 of something exists too, and if 1 of something exists, then .5 of something exists too, and if .5 of something exists, then .25 of something exists too, and so on leading to an infinite amount of smaller amounts. If an infinite amount of smaller amounts of something exists, then that something can’t exist because an infinite amount of smaller things must first exist sequentially (one after the other) before that something can exist and an infinite amount of smaller things cannot sequentially exist because an infinite amount of things never ends so it would never finish creating everything that existed.
An example would be before 2 of something can exist, 1 of something must exist, and before 1 of something can exist, .5 of something must exist, and before .5 of something can exist, .25 of something must exist, and so on. So there would have to be an infinite amount of smaller things that existed sequentially before any quantity such as 2 of something exists which is impossible because an infinite amount of things that must exist sequentially (one after the other) can never exist because an infinite amount of things never ends, and thus there would always be something after everything else and it would never end. Therefore there anything quantifiable (able to be expressed in terms of quantity or amount) such as the three spatial dimensions, length, width, and height, must have indivisible units of itself.
So nothingness must’ve created indivisible units of itself as one of its actions, if not the only first action.
It is important to know how existence developed so that one can know the rules of existence and how to make (1), if it exists, impossible.
How nothingness developed from there is not currently known by the author of this text, the reason the author shares this is so that other beings would help reason out how nothingness developed from there.
