[N0B0DY]

Your last statement brings to mind “The only constant is change.” And I see that as the basis for Einstein’s illusory reality, Analog.

When you say, “perpetual, constant or everlasting” it is suggestive of continuity, which understandably some equate with being absolute. Yet, contextually, the basis for change is differentiation, which requires a dualistic – relative – framework, and this is where I draw the imaginary line because relative and absolute are categorically opposite.

The best example to depict my premise has already be given – absolute velocity – which cannot be applied contextually to quantitative measurements. If we can wrap our heads around the fact that the absolute universe doesn’t require motion to reach any destination, it is then fairly simple to infer that all relative measurements don’t exist to the absolute universe. This message and that keyboard can’t exist to the absolute universe because the absolute universe can only have one undifferentiated absolute density, which is the impenetrable equivalent of the absolute void – changeless, and not constantly changing. This being synonymous to eternity, continual time; and absolute timelessness, without time. In this context, a concept of absolute time doesn’t make sense.

You know, I think it comes down to the pictures we have in our heads. When you say, “It is an illusion created by the interactions of matter in space...” it can’t fit into my picture because I view the two as being exactly the same. If there is no space, there is no matter; and vice-versa. Both are dependent upon Einstein’s Celeritas constant, in the observable non-absolute vacuum, and both are transcended in the absolute vacuum.

Of course many will argue that there is no such absolute vacuum “anywhere” and I would agree, precisely because it is nowhere. It is the above-mentioned imaginary connector that allows individuals to reach point B in a finite amount of time – the solution to all of Zeno’s seeming paradoxes. If it literally existed, reaching point B would be impossible if even by an illusory means because there is a dichotomy paradox attached to what is said to exist – as a next step – and that which doesn’t exist. Just like asking ourselves, “What exists on the outside of everything that exists in its entirety?” To which we reply, “Nothing.”

This latter point may seem silly, but it is the basis for how people have to think to function. Yet, when we rid our minds of the unobserved “eternal existence,” then the false dichotomy paradox disappears: we go from dualistic thinking of “everything and nothing” to the singular “nothing and nothing”; the absolute “one” becomes absolutely none.

From this point we may deduce – realize – that reality is an abstractive process based on conscious observation. Consciousness is then not the result of an unobservable a priori reality, deduced from what is consciously-observed, but rather that “other” reality (this one “here and now”) is the result of the time it takes for an individual to consciously observe his/her temporal persistence of existence.

So, ultimately, I don’t really have a system. I follow the implications of what is proposed to me and extend them to the absolute point using inverse laws, which to date has rendered all implications non-existent. There can then only be, in my mind, relativity and replication as the basis for evolutionary reality. Of which, change serves as the motional factor of any and all systems and models of those systems.