Quotessence
Home / Authors / Dejan Stojanovic
Dejan Stojanovic

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Poet

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

“Dimension, or something that has an extent, cannot be infinite like previously described nothingness. If this were possible, there would be two “infinities”—the infinity of the “Absolute” (God) and the Infinity of Nothingness. These two principles would not function in correlation and influence one another (servitude and dominance) as active and passive principles. As two absolute infinities, these principles would function as the active (or passive, with no difference) principle in both cases. Such a relationship would only lead to mutual annihilation, not coexistence and influence. These worlds would become so different that this absolute difference would merge and convert them into the same principle, regardless of how paradoxical this may sound. But this would be the death of both, and death is not possible in either case.”

“The One always remains the One. The division is appearance. The division and the life or existence of many is a phenomenon. One or Onenennes is Noumenon. Oneness is always present in plurality. Oneness is an underlying reality or Noumenon in action. For example, a universe like ours may have its birth and death, appearance and disappearance, while the universe as a totality, the sum of all, may still exist. In that case, Carlo Rovelli may be right in saying that “there is no such thing as a real void, one that is completely empty” (physicists have a consensus about this). Still, no universe, regardless of its size, can encompass nothingness or emptiness in its totality. All “space” beyond, not confined or affected in any way by any universe, is a real void. We cannot talk about a real void within the Universe, but beyond it, there is such a thing as a real void.”

“We can almost be sure of two poles of the Absolute—Being and Nonbeing. Being, as I understand it, can be equated with the Universal Mind (Ultimate Mind) or God, provided we use the term God following this philosophy and not following its general use (as in religions), where this term serves the ideas, desires, and dogmas of the people who claimed to speak a word of God (and not to fit reality).”

“Infinity does not exist in actuality. Infinity is only the potential of a Universal Mind. Since it is immaterial and not a slave to the space-time continuum and its properties, it is not dimensional and can be finite and infinite simultaneously. Since time and space have no meaning in the absolute state of a Universal Mind, then its finitude or infinity is almost irrelevant and of no importance.”

“Infinity is a mathematical, spatial, and temporal impossibility except as a concept. It is absurd if understood as an actuality (the universe, the world). Even if we try to imagine the infinity of the Universal Mind as “actuality” playing out all its potential simultaneously, that is impossible because infinity is both theoretically and practically unreachable.”

“The Universal Mind saves its uttermost purpose and meaning more through its potential than its actuality. Actuality can be one and many. All these real and potential actualities are limited, and their finitude will eventually make them disappear. Through its potential for infinity, the Universal Mind can exercise, not only simultaneously but perpetually, innumerable and always different (although based on the same laws) manifestations of becoming.”

“Although the Universal Mind is a Being, it is not concerned with becoming because it already is. Since the purpose and meaning of the Being, Universal Mind, as it is in its absolute state, is lost, it must either transform itself or produce from itself the world as we see, perceive, and experience it. This process, purpose, or true meaning may be called the rejuvenating process of the Ultimate Being by always becoming new through rebirths (in different ways following the potential) ad infinitum.”

“From the standard view of the main religions, God created the Universe. Based on this standard, the Universe is material, but the Creator is immaterial. On the other hand, we can imagine that the Universe has always existed, and if that were the case, there was no creator to create it; “it simply is” (Bertrand Russell). We certainly know that the Universe, regardless of whether it was created by God or not (always existing without a cause), is evolving. The Universe is not static. The Universe is the source, the cause, and an inexhaustible reservoir of energy, possibilities, and life. Although it sounds paradoxical, the Universe is “physical” and non-physical. As such, it contains metaphysics in its very Being. The physical feature of the Universe is only an expression of its metaphysical, "ethereal," nonphysical nature (the Kantian being-in-itself); physics is its appearance, and metaphysics is its essence. (The appearance is in motion, yet the essence is static. Motion [in the classical “physical” sense] is possible in the world of physics and impossible in metaphysics [immaterial world].) Based on our perceptions and beliefs, the starting point cannot change the nature of the Universe. Created or uncreated, the Universe is. The Universe would never be different, regardless of our point of view; only our ideas about the Universe may change. The more important question is whether our concept of the Universe would be different if we changed our starting position. Could the Universe potentially be different depending on these two starting points? Either way, if God created it or it always existed in one form or another, the Universe may show and possess the same qualities, in which case this dichotomy would not be substantially important, except formally. The third idea could imply God in the Universe (not in the strict sense of Spinoza's pantheism) and the Universe in God. What does this mean? It means that the Universe is, in either case, a manifestation of something that has always existed. If something never existed, it would not be able to come into Being. Absolute nothingness cannot give birth to anything, either God or the Universe. If this were the case, then Nothingness would be the first cause. If God is the first cause and source of everything, then based on this logic, God would be nothing because God came from nothing. On the other hand, if the Universe came from nothing, the Universe would be nothing. Only nothing can come from nothing. Nothing is incapable of creating or making anything. Therefore, the question of who created God or who created the Universe is, at best, counterproductive and sterile. From this hypothetical point of view, it would not matter if God created the Universe. If God or the Universe always existed in some way or another, the critical question would be whether there is any difference between God, understood in this way, and the Universe. For if God always existed, what would make it so distinctly and inherently different from the Universe? Or if the Universe always existed, what would make it inherently different from God?”

“Based on our perceptions and beliefs, the starting point cannot change the nature of the Universe. Created or uncreated, the Universe is. The Universe would never be different, regardless of our point of view; only our ideas about the Universe may change. The more important question is whether our concept of the Universe would be different if we changed our starting position. Could the Universe potentially be different depending on these two starting points? Either way, if God created it or it always existed in one form or another, the Universe may show and possess the same qualities, in which case this dichotomy would not be substantially important, except formally. The third idea could imply God in the Universe (not in the strict sense of Spinoza's pantheism) and the Universe in God. What does this mean? It means that the Universe is, in either case, a manifestation of something that has always existed. If something never existed, it would not be able to come into Being. Absolute nothingness cannot give birth to anything, either God or the Universe. If this were the case, then Nothingness would be the first cause. If God is the first cause and source of everything, then based on this logic, God would be nothing because God came from nothing. On the other hand, if the Universe came from nothing, the Universe would be nothing. Only nothing can come from nothing. Nothing is incapable of creating or making anything. Therefore, the question of who created God or who created the Universe is, at best, counterproductive and sterile.”

“If we try to answer these questions, we will again be faced more with our inherited ideas about the Universe and God than with the reality and essence these terms should represent. Therefore, we should try to enrich and redefine these and many other terms we use. We, human beings, decided that the word (term, idea) God means, and should mean, something inherently different from the Universe. We also decided that the Universe means and should mean something different from God. But, if we, somewhat arbitrarily, determined not only the destiny of these terms and ideas but, based on them, our very conception and perception of what these ideas and terms are supposed to represent, one may ask how much closer these ideas and reasoning have brought us to the truth.”

“Once we have established our ideas and definitions, the main underlying question is whether our goal has been more in preserving and fighting for the preservation of our concepts and already established ideas as they are or in finding out if they represent the truth as it is and ought to be and not only as it is defined, arbitrarily declared, proclaimed or prescribed? If we get rid of all dogmas and established paradigms, we can conclude that what we seek must be the truth itself, regardless of how well or to what degree it would fit our views, concepts, and beliefs.”

“We must notice that religious thought, for instance, as presented by their most elaborate, learned, and sophisticated proponents, regardless of the grasp and superb philosophical knowledge (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are extraordinary examples), did not, even with the best efforts to fight dogma and go from strictly philosophical positions, try to conceive God as something different from God as presented in Christianity or the Bible. A similar situation exists with the other predominant monotheistic religion, Islam. Based on this logic, as a subject of philosophical inquiry, God became a priori a question of how to establish the right to God more than how to set the truth (the right to the truth) itself.”

“Without the original impetus from the Universal Mind, matter would be lifeless, immobile stuff, even if it somehow existed independently, and space would only be emptiness or absolute void, unaffected or minimally affected by the created world or universe. What powers the Universe is the main force, the source of all forces, and Everything. All the rest is an illusion, and our interpretation is a consequence of our senses and thinking. Our world is a program of an Absolute, Universal Mind working with the Absolute Void (its only means) to create the World. The main unifying force enabling all this is the Absolute itself.”

“Senses make perceptions possible with feelings, emotions, and thoughts in humans. From an earthly point of view, senses empower the higher levels of life, conditionally speaking. However, what empowers the world is the possibility of and for relationships. If the absolute world is ultimate and one, relations are not possible. Any division of oneness is, in a way, the opposite of the absolute. The Absolute must stay intact to be absolute, but the Absolute is “dead” at the point of its absoluteness, which is Zero. Absolute nothingness is dead at the Zero point of its absoluteness. The absolute Being (God) is “dead” at the point of its absoluteness, which is Zero. The whole Triad of the Absolute, with its components of God and Nothingness, is Zero if it is only the Absolute without established relations within itself.”

“Every part of the Absolute is connected and interconnected through the intrinsic value of everything that exists. The absolute value of the finite is absolute in its finitude and infinitude. Its finiteness makes connection and relationships (life) possible in the absolute sense. The infiniteness of the finite is absolute because it lies in the ability of the finite to resemble the infinite in its potential for variations. Every finite value is potentially infinite.”

“The Absolute, without life, is dead not only because of its power, omnipotence, and omniscience but also because of its absolute finiteness. The Absolute is the most finite thing. The totality of power and knowledge makes the absolute obsolete. Its total knowledge is its ultimate limit. Its total power excludes purpose and meaning. There is no purpose and meaning in absolute knowledge and power. The purpose is already there in the Absolute, that which should be longed for.”

“Everything in nature coexists with something else. Our perceptions come from relations. We must see and perceive what we experience in specific ways; slight differences don’t count. What we see is not a matter of choice for the most part—to see the world, to feel heat, cold, and fear. All that exists has its frequency and structure within a larger structure. Since there is a connection between everything, the existence of one depends on the effect it makes on another in a very peculiar way. This effect is more of a result when the impacted one is the source of life and existence for the One that initially caused and produced it all.”

“All we see is an "illusion" but a beautiful, meaningful, and purposeful illusion, no less real and realistic if it were the other way. The most important thing is the existence and rejuvenation of the ultimate, primordial immaterial essence. Transformation of this essence and power (supreme primary quality), similar from a human point of view to "alchemy," does not undermine the value and reality of matter and the Universe. In this sense, we believe that the ultimate immaterial Being is omnipotent and capable of creating and recreating itself through different modes of transformation. The most important transformation is the transformation of the essence into existence.”

“There is nothing beyond the Absolute. There can be no purpose, meaning, or hope if there is nothing beyond it. Purpose, meaning, and hope can only exist in relativity. Without relativity, these terms or states have no meaning. Relationships create purpose, meaning, and hope. Whenever or wherever there is a relationship, it means there is something beyond, something more significant to hope for, something to pursue and build meaning and hope through that pursuit.”

“God belongs equally to believers and atheists, but believers “authorized” the right to the word God and its meaning. Agnostics and atheists got caught on it, although they would like to know the truth, too. Since God is the truth, atheists did not realize this yet. Once they realize it, they will become believers because they believe in truth and God is Truth. However, this does not mean that the Christian God or the God of Islam is the truth, but that the truth itself is God. The majority of believers, atheists, and agnostics would instead like to know or accept the truth rather than a stolen idea of God and lies (although many of them conceived with good intentions) presented as truth.”

“If we accept that intelligent design is not necessarily what we think it is, or if we enrich the word (term) design to contain additional meaning in extraordinary contexts or ideas about God and creation, we may understand that design may be the design without designing, that the creation may be creation without creating in the way we see it and understand it. We admit that there can be no design without designing and no creation without creating, but what is to be created or designed in the absolute? If the Absolute is the “highest” form of “existence,” then it must be, at the same time, absolute perfection. If there is absolute perfection, what creation can match the existing perfection? We must agree that no possible outcome of the Absolute can be more perfect than the Absolute itself. Absolute itself is perfection; otherwise, it would not be absolute.”

“If absolute perfection is an idle walk from one point to another, which is no walk at all, then there is no existence and no life. If we come from this postulate and premise, the existence and life, as we see it, must be, conditionally speaking, “less perfect.” This less-perfect world (existence) is possible only through creation or recreation (“design”). But this creation is not possible without recreation. There is nothing to start from except the Absolute itself—Being and Nonbeing (Something and Nothing). There is nothing to hope for outside this realm. Nothing can be created from nothing if the Being does not create it. Regardless of how omnipotent it is, the Being cannot create anything except out of itself. Even creation out of itself would not be the real creation but recreation because the created being would still be the same (although modified).”

“Now we come to the idea of ex nihilo. We do not know anything about the world before the Big Bang, which could mean that the world came from nothing. But if we ask religious people, nothing can be created out of nothing. But if nothing comes out of nothing, the creation must be the “Child” of existing something, which must be God. If even God cannot create something out of nothing, it must create the world (universe) out of itself. If this creation is the creation out of itself, then it cannot inherently be different from the so-called “creator.” If it cannot be inherently different from the creator, then this creation cannot be precisely called creation but recreation. But even this recreation is impossible without the Nothing. In this sense, there is a creation (partially) out of nothing (ex nihilo) because the real creating force is the Absolute and not only a God or a Universal Mind. The Universal Mind creates and procreates with the help of Nothingness and not solely from nothingness because ex nihilo nihil fit—from nothing, nothing comes to be.”

“Gravitational pull is the Max Plank’s vibration, which, as a source of motion, is the source of the gravitational pull, without which kinetic and potential energy would be zero. At this point, everything stops. At the speed of light, an object has infinite kinetic energy, which equals infinite mass. This infinite kinetic energy or infinite mass is static and massless. That is the point of absolute density. The world becomes static when its mass reaches the point of absolute speed, which would be equivalent to the same infinite point reached by the mass traveling at the speed of light. This is not infinite mass but an effect of the kinetic energy produced by the speed of light equal to the infinite mass. This proves my point that everything would stop if it were not for the kinetic energy and the “gravitational” pull fed by the immaterial Universal Source of everything.”

“The Creator, the Primordial Being (Universal Mind), is the Ultimate Primary Quality of Reality. Creation (energy, matter) is the secondary quality of reality. The effects of the secondary qualities on the mind are tertiary qualities on my scale of qualities. In Lock’s classification, our secondary quality would be primary, and our tertiary quality would be secondary. This distinction is essential for understanding the nature of reality.”

“Kant insists on experience in terms of cognition and understanding, which further implies that pure thought accessing the noumenal world is, in a way, impossible since there is no experience to check it. We state not only that the whole world is an “illusion” but that the Noumenon, as the ultimate source, is the creator of the phenomenal world operating as a program of the Noumenal domain of the same world.”

“Space is only possible in existence because beyond existence, in the pure essence of the Absolute, there is no space, which means there is no time. The other mode or sine qua non of existence is a plurality. The world must transform from primordial oneness and singularity into the plurality of existence or life. This transformation does not mean that the singularity disappears but that this singularity transforms into a plurality that powers not only existence and life but, more importantly, meaning and purpose. Still, there is always an underlying Oneness pervading reality of which quantum entanglement is one of the most obvious signs.”

“Quantum entanglement Quantum entanglement is a sign and subtle proof of the Universal Mind securing the oneness or singularity of the “material” world. This way, the ultimate immaterial reality operates within the “material” reality. The laws of physics are at work with maximum speed, yet the information is ever-present and omnipresent simultaneously, which is, in a way, proof of quantum entanglement. Einstein described the phenomenon of quantum entanglement (particle entanglement, when a particle is in two places simultaneously) as the “spooky action at a distance.” He also said: “I don't believe in quantum physics because I believe the Moon is there even if I am not looking at it.” We agree with Einstein that the Moon is there, whether we look at it or not. We also believe that we cannot affect the position of a particle, either if we look at it or not. It appears as a particle when we look at it because we identify and recognize it. When we don't look at it, it is a wave, an illusion. We do not make any impact on it. We also agree with Einstein that a particle has a definite spin before being measured. Einstein has shown that one particle can affect the other if the signal travels between them faster than the speed of light. On the macro level, if we disregard the micro level of a micro level at which the smallest immaterial indivisible “particles” (not yet discovered) may travel faster than the speed of light, the signal traveling between the “particles” may be faster than the speed of light. It may be at any place at any time. Information is not lost because, on a micro-level of a micro-level, there is an "absolute" velocity (of immaterial “substance,” “particles,” information, messages, “thoughts,” and underlying oneness of reality) that secures the “absolute spacetime” even in the world of plurality which the Universe is. This principle is oneness in a plurality (or singularity in diversity). In this way, the original oneness (singularity) of the primordial Universal Mind of the Absolute is saved even in the world as its manifestation. There can be no plurality without oneness (singularity) simultaneously; otherwise, the world would not be possible. Without the underlying oneness, the world would be a mechanical compilation of "dead matter," incapable of producing any logical or sustainable physical system or the world, not to mention biology and life. Without oneness or singularity, the world would be “existence” without existing, equal to nothingness. Quantum entanglement, securing the instantaneous interconnectivity among the unimaginable number of “material” entities, is the underlying force in action, uniting everything in one superbly interconnected and alive organism. Quantum entanglement also manifests “absolute speed” and nonlocality; otherwise, particles would not have instantaneous interconnectivity. The Universal Mind (Primordial Immaterial Force) is the uniting force of everything. In partnership with emptiness, the Universal Mind is the creator of everything and reality as we see it. • A = ∞p (Where p is potential) Absolute is infinite potential. 0 = ∞ • W = P (Where W is the world or U—universe and P is plurality) • A = P+p (Plurality) Any existing world (Universe) is finite. The Absolute Mind is immaterial and limitless, but it is still limited in itself and any particular manifestation (the world) and infinite in its potential. In other words, it can appear at any time, anywhere, as a specific manifestation, and it can go on (appearing and disappearing in the form of universes) forever ad infinitum. This potential of the Absolute (and the Nothing) for infinity (as a never-achievable goal) is the leading cause (source) of uncertainty, which, ultimately, is the source and basis of free will. Without uncertainty, there is no free will. Determinism excludes uncertainty and, therefore, free will.”

“Matter, as something obvious and tangible, is all around us, but as we already know—what we perceive is only a presentation of the world to our senses through which we make the picture of the world. Our senses allow us to touch, smell, and feel love, pleasure, and pain. Everything looks material in a literal sense, yet what lives is only an idea translated through the senses. All we feel, touch, smell, and see exists because we not only touch it, smell it, and see it but are aware of it and have an idea about it. Beyond all we see or imagine, there is an overpowering mind. Without this, mind-matter is not only dead but is also not possible.”

“If we could become accustomed to this kind of reasoning, we could recognize that what determines our usual way of thinking, not necessarily perception, which we often condition by thoughts, is the paradigm accepted as “absolute truth.” However, it may not be the truth. It is impossible to imagine anything as absolutely dead except something nonexistent, which is, on the other hand, not dead but only nonexistent.”

“There is no actual death in the Universe, only a transition from one state to another. The fact that matter, for the most part, does not have an awareness of itself does not change this fact. Matter itself, in all its forms, is alive everywhere. This life is possible only through something which channels it and feeds it. That something is the Absolute Mind or what, often misused and misinterpreted, the word God means in a deeper and broader sense.”

“We must use certain words; it is the main way to express our thoughts. Even with simple words, like mind and God, the matter becomes more complicated when we use them as terms with specific meanings outside their usual meaning. In this sense, God, as interpreted in most religious books, except in Buddhism, is not only personalized but becomes personal—he “listens” to and “cares” about us in a literal sense. On the other hand, the Absolute Mind is a different idea of the Being. However, what exists exists, regardless of our interpretation, and is not affected by our interpretations, except as a development of ourselves, which is, at the same time, the life of that of which we are part—of the Absolute Mind.”

“We can accept energy transformation into mass and that they are the same. But matter, or this kind of energy, could have never come into Being just of itself and could not have created itself, as it is, from nothing. As we described, matter (energy, mass) is impossible without the primary quality. Not only would it not be possible, but it would also be dead without direction, purpose, and meaning. Although, according to Einstein, matter is a condensed energy, energy is still massless. Without kinetic energy, everything would not only come to a stop but disappear. Through motion, the Universal Source secures all the laws of physics, including gravitation and the universal cosmic order. In a way, energy is an unidentifiable “force,” the Bridge between the universal Source and matter.”

“Richard Feynman had to say this about energy in his 1961 lecture: “There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law – it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.” All significant philosophers and scientists throughout history were in their own right, right if we consider the context, time, and place, the point from which they observed the world by the means available to them. If we understand this context, we know how much harder it was for them to decipher the world previously unknown, except as an experience without fundamental and deeper understanding. In this sense, all these philosophers and scientists were, in a way, “right,” even when they were “not” right. Correctness or wrongness of their ideas and opinions shall be measured more by how they helped our understanding and ideas developed directly from their thoughts. Even if they were in some way wrong, great ideas helped our ideas develop and allowed the formation and formulations of great ideas that will follow. Quality and potential of insights and ideas are more important than strict correctness without any potential. Progress in human history would not be possible without following the traces of long-bygone giants (as Newton understood them). We can hardly produce any new important question that ancient Greek philosophers did not pose. The whole idea of Western philosophy, as it is, would not be possible without the ancient Greeks. This statement holds even when we talk about the modern era’s greatest philosophers, starting with Descartes and culminating in the works of the great German philosophers Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, the Dutch Spinoza, and others. Almost all central questions or problems treated by these philosophers were already postulated, discussed, or touched, directly or indirectly, by the great ancient philosophers who paved the way for the others.”

“The first spark puts Everything in motion, sufficient that Everything seeks its place unmistakably based on the principle of chance or a program. Evolution makes no difference, whether chance or a program, because Everything will play out according to “plan” and establish order. If we suppose that the whole future development lies in the principle of chance, then this chance must be so perfect that it is irrelevant if the program develops perchance or under the supervision of a higher power. The result would be the same. (The chance offers a bigger chance, for in endless cycles of the Universe and life, the chance always empowers or enables a new world and order.)”

“This illusion is reality, and we shall acknowledge it as such. The interdependence of secondary and primary qualities, the dependence of our senses on the world, and the formation of our impressions are all realities. But, if reality is not reality, as we see it or understand it, this does not mean it is not a reality. Without these “illusions,” there would be no meaningful reality. Reality as it is, in its ultimate and absolute state, without transformations, is equal to nothing.”

“Locke’s distinction between primary qualities of the thing, which he described as solidity, extension, figure, motion or rest, and number, are not primary qualities of the essence of the Ultimate Being as it is but, at best, can only be, conditionally speaking, primary qualities of the manifestation of the Being in things, in plurality. As such, the distinction between the primary and secondary qualities is not between the essence and appearance (reality and appearance) but between the different modes (levels, properties) of appearances.”

“For Schopenhauer, the world is an idea. Although in a way distinct from the will, this idea implies will and therefore equates it. If the world itself is an idea and if nothing exists beyond this world and this idea, then there is no place in Schopenhauer’s philosophy either for noumenon or metaphysics. If everything is the world and the world itself is an idea and the will, then the whole world is a phenomenon: subject and object, cause and effect, purpose and meaning. Although there is a distinction between the idea and matter, this distinction is only on the surface, since even if the world is an idea or an appearance of a hidden idea, this ultimate idea is not beyond the world but is the world itself, which annihilates the substantial distinction between mind and body (matter and idea).”

“If we equate Schopenhauer’s idea to noumenon, this idea can become the mind’s essence in our sense. On the other hand, if we equate Schopenhauer’s will to the world, then we can equate it to the secondary quality of the primary essence (Locke’s primary quality). This almost invisible dualism in Schopenhauer’s thought can be easier to understand if we treat his idea as essence and his will (manifestation through the world) as existence. We can further conclude that without the essence, there is no existence but also that without the existence, the essence “disappears” (is on hold as potential).”

“Even endless knowledge of the Universal Mind cannot sustain infinity as actuality. The Universal Mind cannot transform into an absolute plurality of infinity. Its purpose is to transform from one into many and to exist meaningfully. The meaning and the purpose of the Universal Mind are saved based on this limit imposed by something without any limit, the infinity.”

“Even if we naively try to explain the immeasurable spaces, energies, and galaxies of the Universe with the so-called dark matter and dark energy, it is hard to comprehend, regardless of all possible physical laws and laws of compression or contraction that such waste energies can fit into a tiny “spot.” If energy is indestructible, this beginning will prove the opposite based on its smallness. If something can disappear into nothing, it must be “destructible,” regardless of our conceptions.”

“Another force, which is not a force at all but is equally important, is the "force" of the Nonbeing, the force of the Nothing, the force of Emptiness, or the absolute vacuum. Without this “force,” space and time would not be possible. We must also state that time is impossible without space. In this sense, we treat time as a feature or property of space.”