The Myth Of Zero, or Nothingness
The concept of zero as a fundamental aspect of conventional mathematics is so apparently self-evident that it seems beyond question. However, questioning it is exactly what I am going to do here. The reason is as fundamental as the concept itself; the question of whether or not “nothingness” can exist is crucial to the process of progressing from consciousness towards Awareness and, furthermore, is reflected in the technological development of humanity itself.
To launch into the understanding of the true nature of zero, revisit the concepts of measurements and limits. That is, any measure has meaning only in a relative sense. This meaning is realized by comparing it to another measure. This other measure, therefore, serves as a reference for the first measure. For example, you cannot know where you are now unless you know where you have been. In practical terms, this reference measure is defaulted to zero, or “ground zero”, so the only measure left is the distance from “ground zero” to where you are now. The fractalic issue become evident in this when you realize that you can have a lot of distances that are the same measurement value, but that do not define the same location at all because each of them has a different “ground zero”!
By contrast, comparing any measurement to the True Reference, Infinity, makes the measurement infinitesimal, which means it is so close to zero as to be unmeasurable. In other words, you find no discernible difference between “ground zero” and any other measurement. Recognizing this gives you the key to understanding the true meaning of zero.
Given that Reality is defined as “all is One”, and One is equal to Infinity, a genuine state of nothingness cannot exist in Reality. Reality is “everythingness”, and there is “nowhere” you can go to in Reality where “everythingness” does not exist. This idea that nothingness can exist comes from the perception of the infinitesimal quality of what we call reality. We see ever-decreasing values of measure and extrapolate to a point where there are no values at all. But the perception of decreasing values of measure is merely the result of comparing one measure to another, and is not the result of comparison with the True Reference.
Let’s look quickly at this progression from Reality to reality. From Awareness we iterate consciousness through limitation into dimensionality, of which all measurements are values less than Infinity. This then leads inexorably to the perception that there is “us” (the lesser) and “the rest” of Infinity (the greater) as separate from us. This should seem very much to you like the dichotomy between humanity and the Divine. However, the limitations and appearance of separation are illusory, as are the differences between “greater” and “lesser”, because Infinity cannot be divided.
The idea of “zero”, or nothing, requires the existence of “something” in order for it to have meaning. The perception of nothingness requires someone to do the perceiving, which means that a perceived state of nothing is not absolute. The observer and that which is observed are not separate, so if “nothing” is observed and the conclusion is that “nothing” exists, the observer is attempting to exclude him/herself from the set referred to as “nothing”. The situation seems similar to the question of whether a tree falling in the forest makes a noise if no one is there to hear it. The answer is obvious because since consciousness (or Awareness) to any degree, is a given, there will be perception, and that means that in the context of this writing, “nothing” cannot exist because a perceiver (”something”) must be present in order for “nothing” to be perceived.
Zero is no different from other measurements in that it derives meaning only by comparison with a reference. Thus, zero exists in a relative way only, not in an absolute way. This makes it quite useful in conventional mathematics. For example, with a given reference group such as 11 apples resting on a table (the table being the designated reference area), you can arrive at a quantity of zero apples relative to the original reference group total by removing the 11 apples from the table. Note in this example that the idea of zero apples would be meaningless were there not an original group of apples to serve as a reference!. But zero apples is not “nothingness”, nor does it mean that apples do not exist at all; it is merely a symbolic way of describing the absence of apples within the reference area at that point in time. By contrast, Infinity is Absolute; not, “the only” absolute, but Absolute, period. Once anything has been verified to exist, the impossibility of nothing has been proven.
LariAnn Garner has sought knowledge of the meaning of life since her teenage years, and lives that quest today. This quest has led her through exploration of different versions of Christianity as well as studies as wide-ranging as the Edgar Cayce material, Lobsang Rampa, the work of Robert A. Monroe and the Monroe Institute, the Bartholomew material, Ramana Maharshi, and much more.
Her first published book is Fractalic Awakening - A Seeker’s Guide, available at http://fractalicawakening.com.
She lives with her family in south Florida, U.S.A.
