Search the full text of this book
Ebooks from eLibrary!





In Search of a Cyclops

the proof of nothing — a theory of everything ©




Chapter Two

Theories of Everything


At first, walking up a gigantic mountain is not much different from walking through any kind of hilly land sprinkled with farms, villages and patches of forest. Climbing up seems quite uneventful, nothing special, and the importance of the lay of the land can easily be taken for granted. Similarly, the importance of human language — our verbal way of communication — can be misunderstood as not already containing the promise of something quite astounding, the delivery of the enormous view that is waiting for us high above our heads. So it cannot be stressed enough here in our quest to discussing and understanding everything that language, a man made tool, is one of the keys to understanding not only the metaphysical but also the scientific overall picture.

You will most likely already agree that whether a certain word indicates a color, a piece of food, or an action depends on our communal agreement of the specific word. Words should therefore not be seen as static entities automatically containing the truth, because an agreement lies at their very foundation. Hiking up the enormous mountain requires a cooperative effort, not something a person can do all by him or herself. And in our world today, different people use different languages, different words. Even a word from one and the same language doesn't necessarily mean just one thing nor stays the same over time. A word can be taken to mean something else when it is used in a different context, like blue can refer to an emotional state rather than just the color. Confusion can easily occur when two people do not have the same conceptual idea that was supposedly portrayed by one and the same word. For some, emancipation expresses the idea of liberation, while for others it points to establishing equality; for yet another group women are the main focus of this word. Seemingly, a word can hover above several ground words that are in themselves not one and the same, such as occurs with emancipation that can find its explanation both with the words freedom and equality.

Most importantly, some of the conceptual ideas that words portray cannot exist at one and the exact same time and place, such as 'wet' and 'fire' or 'peace' and 'war.' When certain conflicting words are used to describe a situation at the same time and place, we may hear verbal reasons that invite us to get upset, pushing us to reject the other person's words, and walk away. But also, we can get bored easily when it takes too long for someone to get to the point, and we are turned-off by what appears to be a lengthy story — a major problem particularly when trying to discuss the overall picture as done in this book. Still, people like this tool of language because it provides us a fast and in some cases the only way to communicate with each other. Over the millennia, people have communicated with each other, via words, models, concepts, and images. If our ancestors were thinking about how everything fit together, they must have used this language tool to communicate that to one another.

The restrictions of our spoken language must not be taken lightly in this quest to find the larger meaning behind the daily use of words. A word in the dictionary may not always show the ultimate distinctions. Democracy, as an example, is a concept known world-wide, and considered to be clear cut. But if you live in a nation with a two-party system you are experiencing democracy quite differently from someone who lives in a democracy with various parties, be it three, four or many parties. Both electoral platforms are democratic in that they deliver representation to the larger voting citizenry, but in one form representatives are winners-taking-all in district races — with as many as up to 49.9% of the voters ending up as empty-handed losers in their district race. In the other form of democracy, representatives come forth out of proportional elections delivering equal representation — with close to everyone getting the representative they voted for. Without understanding the differences in background, two persons talking to each other from both systems may come to conflicting conclusions about democracy. As long as both persons do not know that fundamentally different kinds of democracies exist in this world, they may place the other's words into the only framework they can think of: their own.

It is human nature to perceive the idea behind a word as common knowledge, whether this is correct or not. In everyday conversations, it is virtually impossible to contemplate the exact meaning of each and every word. We have learned to skip the 'little' differences that may exist in concepts, and often go for the general meaning of the conversation. Because... who likes to split hairs all of the time? But just as the two tribes around the equator, one living North and the other living South of the equator, we may move apart if we do not find common ground on the essential ideas we hold dearest. The landscape at the bottom of the highest mountain may seem awfully familiar, just forested foothills, but we need to address these familiar issues in light of climbing the real mountain just ahead. Otherwise, we will surely get stuck halfway between the moon and the comfy chairs of home.



For this e-book, the word nothing is possibly the most important word in the quest to understand everything, since understanding the peculiarities of nothing leads to understanding the entire picture. You may at first think this word is a useless tool to get to the larger picture, but the clearings in the woods deliver us the view, not the locations thick with wood that block it. So how do we know that we all consider this word nothing in more or less similar ways? And can we discuss it as mature beings without one of us running away when it hits us that there really is nothing there? Would you place nothing in opposition to everything, or would you declare it to be absolutely insignificant? Do you give it a function? Do you have a clear and straight-forward picture in mind when you hear or read the word nothing, and do you think everyone has the same idea in mind? Scientists, for instance, have only recently and — let's be honest — begrudgingly allowed this word to enter the scientific dictionary. Not too long ago, scientists abhorred the subject matter of nothing, and quickly relegated it to the side-line as a phenomenon of non-importance to science. As you will see further in this book, scientists can behave much like religious leaders and avoid discussing this issue by running away or declaring it a non-issue. The clearings in the woods, allowing us our view, are circumstantial realities that help us understand our moves through all stages of our climb up.

For us it is important to understand that concepts and words are themselves like changing landscapes. Let's therefore briefly examine several historical philosophies in regards to the phenomenon of nothing. Even a short investigation should make the various concepts visible that people had in mind; we might find something in relationship to a theory of everything. Searches for indications of concepts of everything must be conducted carefully because all words are also colored by history. Do we really have a lot of evidence that proves the word god is related to the word whole? Not really. The original use of the word god might have indicated something totally different, yet we do know that at one time the word must have indicated an original concept. Unfortunately for us, words and interpretation of words are subject to change and mutilation over time. The implied use of the word god to describe the unknown may sound plausible to us, but it may have really meant nothing but 'the one and only.' We do not know for a fact; the original concept may be lost forever.



historical examples

Realistically spoken, many words and many complete theories once known could have been lost forever. An example of something almost lost is the Tao. The Tao would have not been written if Chinese philosopher Lao Tse had not left his country. When he was trying to leave, a frontier-guard commanded him to write down his thoughts (for him and for the country), otherwise he would not let him through. The Tao, a marvel of philosophy, came into existence, and continues to exist today. If it wasn't for the special circumstance, no-one would have ever heard of Lao Tse today.

The ancient Chinese philosophies often come as a set of directives and these directives are mainly offered to those in higher positions in society. Many directives are mentioned in a particular way. For example, special advice is given to act: do nothing, so others will do. Also: with fewer laws, there will be fewer thieves. Chinese philosophy was not set up to find a theory of everything for it is more directed towards practice rather than theory. As commonly known, Chinese philosophy is mainly based on the goodness of humans. Yet it has a central place for nothing. Not asking and not telling are central to this philosophy, and that makes a peaceful existence possible. Practice can show that the more knowledge that the people have, the harder it is to govern the people. We may not like the set-up from our modern perspective, but the conclusion is that if citizens don't know how their general affairs were arranged, then they will have a harder time questioning the superiors about their actions. As long as the superiors are interested in the general good only, then the result may indeed be excellent. All Chinese philosophies are characterized by the search for a connection.

The Chinese endeavor to lift contradictions into a higher understanding. Most Chinese philosophies have a common ground in the principles of Yin and Yang — the principles of action and passivity. In the reality of our lives Yin and Yang "battle" with each other, but further away from this reality the nothing captures a more central place. Possibly to express this more central aspect in a model, Neo-Confucianists created the different principles Li and Ki — with Li as the all-embracing world spirit and Ki as matter. With Li, the Chinese believe in heaven, but do not seek a god in this heaven. What is needed is to find the all-embracement of the world spirit, and as such Li is not an individual aspect, but a collective one. On the opposite end we find matter. Here, with Ki, the more tangible opposites as first portrayed with Yin and Yang, have their realms.



While Chinese philosophy can be seen as theorizing only generally about everything — it searches for a general way of thinking and tries to find common ground — Buddhist thinking is more specific; it is characterized by negation. There is no god, creator, creation, ego, no remaining being or immortal soul. However, in Buddhism, there is a world statute: the next thing derives from the previous thing and is already formulated in the previous thing. Essentially, there is a cycle in which one thing is the other, but not completely. For instance, a day is a day. They are comparable and yet each one is different. Even with nights cutting the days apart, they are still connected with each other. What happened yesterday influences what happens today. In reincarnation beliefs, humans go through different stages in which the invisible stages "after life" and "before life" are seen as successive stages. "Suffering" is seen as a fundamental part of human life. Suffering is caused by attachment, by longing and desire. Here, too, negation is the solution: the cycle can be broken by sacrificing "the attachment."

The highest achievement in Buddhism is peace. Note that peace is the most positive word of negation: there are no inner nor outer contradictions. Except for taking its place in the opposite position of war, peace itself does not have an active meaning. Peace is not the reason we go to work; we go to work to make money. We do not go on a vacation because there is peace, but because we work too hard. Peace does not interact with any of these activities. War, on the other hand, could interact with these activities. By letting go of war, we can achieve peace.

In the precepts of Buddhism one is told what should not be done or what should be denied, after which the highest truth will unfold itself without the use of words. Examples of what should be done are abstention from killing, stealing, illicit sexual relations, lying, and imbibing any intoxicant that leads to "slothfulness." Buddhism can be mentioned in connection with the theory of everything, even though the truth will only reveal itself tacitly after one successfully denies everything. There is a full circle, but in our quest to understand everything we find that the provided answer in Buddhism is that the connecting link is an invisible one.



Hinduism, the world's oldest religion besides the other natural beliefs that date back to unknowable times, shows a fascinating figure in the background: Brahman. With Brahman, an infinite and non-changing entity is pronounced that gave rise to all that we know exists, with as first manifestation the creator god Brahma. Yet the background entity Brahman itself is truly 'only' imminent within everything, never the active participant. To declare Brahman a something or someone would not do justice to Brahman. Yet to declare Brahman as nothing would not satisfy either. Only by declaring Brahman a nothing that is more important than all that is can we get close to grasping this entity in ordinary words. Brahman is everything, but not every thing specifically.


the west

In Africa, in ancient Egypt, dualism was held in great esteem with one point of view always having an opposing point of view. That dynamics of opposition is a paramount feature in Western history, prominently so among the Greeks where causality becomes the specific focus. A shift in this specific area of the Mediterranean world has occurred from mythical to more rational thinking; reasoning becomes sharpened. Western ideologies can be seen as quite different from Eastern philosophies. Western ideologies make an effort to get the most out of differences and contradictions. There is no search for a general connection. Instead, the goal is to be the one who is right, and it is best to support this by reasoning and facts where possible — or use arms when needed. Confrontations are essential in Western thinking, creating not a group process of cohesion, but one of competition leading to a quest for intellectual power, for physical dominance, or for sheer dumb luck. Sometimes the Western ways of thinking stemming from competition are destructive, because they may not leave space for disagreeing thoughts. And sometimes it can leave all competitors doing one dumb thing after another, all having lost connection to the fundamental why that started it all. Yet competition can also be inspiring, when people go to enormous lengths to prove they are right and that others are wrong. Rational thinking hasn't come up with a theory of everything, but the knowledge of our world has increased to such a level that it seems possible that we may arrive at one. Or have we become so encapsulated in the righteousness of our conflict thinking that we cannot recognize the clear communal evidence right in front of us?



There is more information available for research other than philosophies that were handed down to us through the spoken and written words. An artifact can, for instance, be a source of information. Ancient portraits and statues of gods or goddesses or images of the sun indicate what humans may have thought when they weren't hunting or looking for shelter. Buildings such as temples tell us what the builders gave importance to. Stonehenge shows the importance of the sun — or the lack of sun at the beginning of winter. One of the artifacts the ancient Egyptians left us is the classically shaped pyramid. The pyramid shape is found in more locations on this globe, in Africa, the Americas, and even in China. While most people are familiar with the pyramids of the Mayan culture, the shape is a little bit different in Central America from the ones in Egypt, though the basics are the same: a square with four oblique sides. The top isn't at all sharp in the Mayan Pyramids, but flat or truncated. The four sides are interesting, because wouldn't you expect the tetrahedron (the regular triangular 'pyramid' with three sides) to be of greater importance than the awkward pyramid with four sides? Something is off, something is not truly perfect. The constructions remain subject to discussion. The pyramids are, nevertheless, visual expressions of highly developed cultures and power. Are the pyramids graphic displays, trying to tell us something? Do the four corners stand for the four directions of the wind and does the top point to the spiritual world, or possibly to a lofty nothing? The pyramids will be discussed in more detail later, and an explanation is given that indicates that high-level abstract thinking existed with its builders from all over the ancient world.



And then, there are many stories throughout history that could be called theories of everything. However, these stories are based on a personified god. Thus they are exempted from explaining the final (or first) step. God has created everything and it is only god who knows the ultimate answer. The missing link in these stories is filled up with god. The imperfection of we, a concept we use daily but that doesn't have clear boundaries at the largest levels, is overcome by the concept of god. God is placed in the middle as a singular expression of everything. And — as long as you are not looking for actual evidence — this may indeed be the case. Later on in this book, evidence against the existence of a single personified god will be provided. Yet a more abstract singular god can indeed exist. When looking at the religious east and west, we can find an overall difference of an agreeable general god in the east, who can hardly be called specific. Meanwhile in the west, an almost human individual is placed in the highest religious prism, either already born and deceased, or still expected to be born. Where in the east a peaceful overall attitude is placed up high, indicating we do not need to find the truly singular truth that will guide all, in the west the singular truth is sought and once it is found it is seen as evidence that we ourselves are part of that highest spot — but only after accepting the specific version to the top position. In the east, we must lower our expectations to arrive at the point of agreement, while in the west the discovered truth was and is used against others. Of course the generalization of east and west is just a generalization. We live in interesting times, because the holistic approaches of the east are popular again in the west, just as individualism of the west is popular again in the east.


the aboriginals

Is it possible to call the dream world of the Aboriginals a theory of everything, although this philosophy incorporates its own limitations? In the dream world of the Aboriginals humans sprout from this world but only recently woke up in it. This dream world displays in a way the statement that humans grow towards reality like children growing to adulthood. The awakening is something from the latter days and has not always been there. Before the awakening there was a complete connection with the whole, and despite now possessing consciousness humans cannot be seen apart from this entire world. The dream world can be called a theory of everything, because it is all-embracing. The not-knowing is placed centrally in the past with connections to the present.


popul vuh

Works like the Popul Vuh, the Mayan book of the dawn of life, may deliver us yet a tad more about ancient thoughts on the phenomenon of nothing. How to explain the word hollow in the Mayan enumeration of what only came later through creation? Their book has the very beginning starting out by proclaiming that at first "there is not yet a person, or animal, bird, fish, crab, tree, rock, hollow, canyon, meadow, or forest. Only the sky is there — the contours of the earth not yet clear. Only the sea is there — mirrored under the sky." By using the word hollow in the enumeration, these Mayas state that what is empty is actually part of what comes after the initial creation. They indicate that for them our world or universe did not start out of nothing. Or what to think about the Sanskrit scripts: “In the beginning when there was no before, there was neither being nor non-being, neither space nor time — not even the sky beyond — neither death nor non-death, no distinction between night and day, no protection by anyone, only shadows in the absolute dark were concealed by shadows in the ocean of nothingness. The one arose through the power of heat by its own propulsion, the nameless one, enwrapped in the void — breathed." With this delivery, leading to the creation of 'the one,' the beginning starts out with what we would describe as nothing much, but we do already find shadows in the dark being hidden by shadows in the ocean. Here too, creation does not start out from absolutely nothing and what is there does not yet contain 'the one' until the one arises.

What these examples show is that humans have possibly been working with the idea of everything — and nothing — since not long after the development of speech. Long-vanished civilizations left mute artifacts, others established oral traditions until the development of writing. Our own modern quest can be placed in the light of Western rational thinking. We do not fully understand — and possibly appreciate — the artifacts and concepts of others. But the concepts shown above deliver examples of the human mind trying to understand everything. Whether these concepts are matured till perfection or not, we have evidence that the idea of everything is not new. But did these examples of ancient cultures deliver you a clear picture in your mind about the position of nothing? Possibly you got a gist of the idea, from the Chinese philosophies having an empty heaven to the Buddhists denying certain options, to Westerners placing others in positions of being empty-handed and wrong. And maybe, while reading these different kinds of philosophy, you got the whole idea!



What many of these ancient deliveries have in common is a declaration of a something that exists at the largest of levels, containing to some extent great importance next to our own presence. Some call this highest glory god, while others call it the truth, wisdom, or paramount emptiness. This something we place high-up is itself not of the same kind as our own presence, and viewed from our very being we could indeed almost call it a nothing. Still, this other kind of presence is to some extent even more important than our own essence. And it may surprise you that in our modern world we deal with an entity of great value that has no fundamental materialized nature, and that this is something we treat with great respect, and yet we don't think about it as if it were a god. I am of course referring to money. Whether we like it or not, we view money as a very central fact of life; with money, we can buy material stuff, while we all agree that money itself is not the material stuff itself we want to eat, drink or own. Actually, money to the modern human being is not much more than a bunch of numbers on a highly secured webpage linked to a piece of plastic in our wallet. The bunch of numbers in our bank account tell us what we can buy and what not. Like it or not, we view this financial reality as the largest non-materialized entity in our everyday existence, moving us to act (go to work), dream (of buying a house), feel jealous (about those with more money), share our fortune (if we can and want to), and capitalize on what we've got. Some have called money a god, calling it Mammon or Ploutos often without attaching much dignity to that name. Yet at the end of this chapter it should be known that we are not into name-calling here. Rather, mentioning money as the highest common value in our global framework is meant to show the actual overall framework of frameworks. That our material reality contains a non-material entity of the highest order — something that delivers the first unobstructed view through the forest on our climb up the mountain.

The essence of these two free chapters of In Search of a Cyclops is communication of ideas, of information. Yet what is information when you do not have access to it? It would be non-information — agree? — since lack of access translates into a result that is the same as information that does not exist. Get yourself the full ten chapters, enabling you to climb the highest mountain ever, to see the vast distance below at your feet, to understand the abstract pyramids and the prime number sequencing, too. Read about the limitations of our current 3D perspective, and about a differently described Big Bang. Visit our information page to purchase The Proof of Nothing or In Search of a Cyclops, the online version. Naturally, it is through family, friends, television, internet, and school that we are able to get our hands on information. Make sure to e-mail your friends, and give them the chance to read all about nothing and everything as well. Take action right now.


color me red

We have moved higher up than the foothills, and with every opening through the trees vistas become visible, some clearly better than others, but with each step up the view becomes definitively more stunning. Historical and linguistic examples about emptiness have made it clear that ancient peoples thought about everything and nothing. The location and the understanding of nothing is so important in our quest to understand everything that a different example of nothing, this time within the overall palette of colors, can shed a further clarifying light.

Tough we all like simple explanations best, reality is hardly ever black and white. Reality may never be a simple picture in which black is nicely set in opposition to white. And, indeed, a good view on reality cannot be completed that way — the only acceptable answer must definitively be colored. Even if we tried to keep it simple, black and white are not even each other's exact opposites either. White can be seen as the culmination of various colors, while black is actually seen as the lack of reflection of light. Therefore black and white are not really each other's opposites because not only white, but all colors can be placed in opposition to 'no reflection of light.' In this respect, just red and black are each other's opposites as well. One shows reflection, the other shows no reflection of light. Similarly, everything isn't just the only opposition to nothing, since each individual aspect finds its own opposition with nothing as well. When finishing this idea and stating that the colors are 'somethings,' white becomes all these somethings together. But how can that be? White is a singular color, while everything is only singular as a linguistic abstract; in real life, everything must definitely be plural. There must be something else to the color white, something fascinatingly simple and yet complex. But before larger more-expanding views become visible, the mountain must be climbed higher — beyond the clouds.


Buy the book

Don't forget — help spread nothing

Other Chapters



"In Search of a Cyclops" contains scientific information to back up the claim that nothing plays a role in each and every structure that tries to deliver a completed view. While the idea of nothing can be a simple concept in itself, the fact that it is present whenever we try to create a structure about everything makes it imperative that we need to understand the role of nothing before we can understand everything.