Null-Void Existential Interplay

A more appropriate name for this should be The Null-Void Existential Paradox—which is more catchy—but under proper scrutiny, the paradox crumbles; hence a mere interplay, or “drama” if you wanna. This means of representation, as are many of my posts, came from idling on Twitter; and—you know what they say about idle minds—is doused with syntax!

Null. Void. What are these monsters? Programming says one thing (both of them are zero—take my word for it, people, such statements work with computers), Christianity another (to “render [something] null and void”—of which, if the analogy is brought into computer graphics…actually, no, that’s a tangent). Philosophy is multifaceted (with every man giving us their trains of thought in an -ism, it’s hard to keep track), Epicureanism engenders (Lucretius makes a fine claim on these in his poem “De Rerum Natura”).

Null should be is non-existent, nothing. Void should be is the existence which houses Null—from programming in statically-typed languages. But Void is void. There’s nothing in it. This means… if something was to come out of void, it would be nothing, Null. Following the fallacious—bet you didn’t think it was—statement: “nothing comes from nothing”, we can say “Void is Null”; with Void being the nothing from which nothing, Null, came. Alternatively, tight boundary on anything assumes its shape. Hence—and better put—Void is the size of Null, “something the size of nothing”, literally; not “something whose size is like no other”.

I cannot argue that Null is void because it’s in itself non-existent. And the existence of Void—it is assumed to exist because of its property of being a container—makes it not of the same category of Null. Therefore Void cannot be Null—I guess this could be a ground for my ineptness in the first sentence of this paragraph. It must only follow that Null is a superset an “interset” of Voids—neither a superset nor a subset but an adjacent set which may or may not intersect with respect to paradigm. But therein lies the drama, no? The play on play, the hide-and-seek, the… ah never mind.  Call it the “Null-Void [existential?] interplay”.

From the definition of Void to be the “houser” of Nulls, …how. the. heck! did Null become a interset with Void? OR is it possible for an composite entity to exist outside that which it’s composed in? No, that’s mathematically möbius, and an impossible extrapolation. That would make the intersection of these following statements valid:

  1. “the set of natural numbers is not real”, and
  2. “in zero, there is infinity”

—well, only if you twist it: möbius. Well… in zero, there actually might be potential infinity.
Since logic is innately not möbius, either the Null-Void situation is möbius or there’s something wrong with the way I think. …or both.

Keyword: “potential”. But potential is dependent on hope and rationality—a rather ironic paradox in itself—which… frankly… no. This should be is a discussion for another day.

The Null-Void Existential Interplay. Sounds legitimate. Again, I may be naming this wrong. Let’s leave it at that—an actual [broken] thought flow. 😌


2 thoughts on “Null-Void Existential Interplay

  1. 🙂 always enjoy some #weirdscience
    Tis a fun exercise when mathematical et statistical concepts is applied to ‘real world’ abstraction.

    In this; imagine a set of real numbers (or, as a real world abstraction; a set of Choices), ‘R’-such that z exists inside the set of R; and z=”Void”.

    Now also, let f(x,y): z=(x,y); where ‘x’ is the Real part/component of choice z (staying with the established abstraction) and ‘y’ the Complex part/component of z [i.e. z=(x,yi), thus defining z as a complex number]

    (Literally, Complex numbers, are a mathematical abstraction used to define numbers whose applications extend beyond the realm of Real numbers-where 1=1, #nostringsattached. It allows us study, and sometimes create, various intrinsic variations of a set of data/numbers-complex!)

    It is understood/learned now, that real life abstractions (e.g. Choices/decision making-in both its basest and most valuable forms) are not as simple (open & shut) as they appear to be; but include a complex part that exists but unseen in the closed/contained realm of real-ness (e.g. The real choice of Yes vs No)

    Further e.g.: the ‘real’ choice between Yes/No has a complex part that is, “The cost of doing nothing”-as Null exists complexly in the real-ness of a/the Void.

    (Woah….that was long, lol!)

Share your knowledge

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s