A proof of FT (the Completeness theorem) with the help of Lp further shows on the problems that the analysis here are in on, where X defines a theory (consisting of sentences x):

 

x*|xX per derivation, based on xX, but (undecidable) x*X nevertheless:

 

x*|x+x+xX+x+x; Lp, X=x*+x+x:

 

XX; Up:

 

FT) x*|xX; Kp.

 

x* must thus belong to X by derivation, if now x* not are assumed as axioms (undecidable x not exists).

 

Instead of the reasoning in the previous section FT thus can be concluded with the help of Lp. However, this later FT-result is intuitively impossible to explain (per se), it can only be said that it is Lp that leads to, proves FT, thus the purely abstract (only imagined) addition of x+x on both sides of , well? The reasoning/proof in the previous section explains why FT is valid, it is evident that that is much more satisfying than this later Lp-proof of FT: Argumentation, argumentation, argumentation, "continuous logic", as it was expressed in the previous section, is (rationally) A and Z.

 

__________

* xx; x≠x, is simpliciter absurd, that x as greater or lesser than itself (x>/<x) can belong to itself (even holistically/meridioistically is x={x}q={x}q, thus neither greater nor lesser than itself, that holistical/meridioistical x are greater/lesser than the original {x} is another matter, the important is what x is, namely then {x}q (holistically/meridioistically)).

 

 

E

 

Given T1 are thus possibilities, possible x(E), eternal, always existing. Possible x which also can be called "virtual x" ("x"). How, given T2, does it happen when "x" turns into (factual, realized) x, becomes (to) x, when x is created? Of course presupposed that x can exist, which it is evident that x can, E (looked at with "empirical" eyes) is not total emptiness, just only pure space (at least not at the time of writing this); Not at all existing "x" cannot be thought, because if "x" is thought, then "x" exists (at least purely abstractly (only thought)), and of course (as non-existences) they cannot be realized (as x). If "x" never is thought (not by anyone), then "x" still may exist, and maybe be realized at some point, but of course without that x can be perceived/thought, because then of course x/"x" is thought. "x" (or x) which are thought but which never are (can be) realized as x which not are thoughts or "x" (which not are thoughts) are pure abstractions (something only thought); Thoughts, and non-thoughts which not are (pure) "x", are {mx}, pure "x" are factually empty (pure) room ({mv}), but then containing, having (owning) the possibility "x", see further the following.

 

Well, first of all, it can be stated that E sometimes is completely empty of x, for if there always (somewhere in E) are x in E, then x=[all x] is an infinite phenomenon contradicting T2:

 

E is sometimes completely empty of x.

 

Even something between pure ("still") room and x in more factual sense is x, which can be called room movement:

 

E is sometimes completely "still", pure room (not completely "still" room, room movement, is x).

 

E must given this be able to create room movement (in E), in order for E to not remain "still", but more than this (to be a "primus motor" in this way) is E not assumed to be able to "do"(/be) it is advanced enough, is actually (holistically) creation out of Nothing, even if the fact that E is infinite intuitively has significance, that something infinite so to speak by the slightest shudder, not even marginal in relation to the infinity, but vast in relation to the finite, can give rise to something finite, is at least somewhat intuitive it tends absurdly towards making E into something "intelligent":

 

E can create room movement (and only room movement).

 

Intuitively compressing room movements, E-contractions, which (perhaps) then cause "x" to become x, more specifically is assumed:

 

mv=min[volume] (mv are smallest volumes):

 

E=∞mv; ∞=min[infinite natural number].

 

mv is purely abstract definition given T2, thus no eternal x, but what outmost exists is only the homogeneous, continuous E, but anyhow, given mv, then in E-contractions (and other space contractions, see further below) mv "jumps" (see further below) into each other and creates at least a reasonably stable x, which either is (continued) absorptive (absorbing mv), or stable, in the meaning not absorptive (not absorbing mv).* Stable x thrusts mv out of their paths, absorptive x absorbs mv in their paths. If x constantly is absorptive, then they tend to be eternal x, that absorption can counteract separation (that x separates mv off) or cleavage of x (that other x "jumps" into x and cleaves x, see further the following), thus that absorption can cause x to (eternally) continue to exist. Given T2 no such possibility may of course exist, so:

 

x tends towards stability (towards being non-absorptive), if they not are stable already at their creation (in space contractions).

 

Stable x which separates mv off and then becomes absorptive, tends with that (of course) to be stable again, with which again the possibi-lity of eternal x be to hand:

 

Stable x, which separates mv off, are completed (returns to being room (mv, again)), not becomes absorptive x, which of course means that x perhaps only can be absorptive in an initial phase:

 

I) Stable x consists of the same (n) number of mv, of the same amount/volume of room(/"energy"), and are thus completed when they se-parate mv off (or are cleaved), and consequently stable x are the smallest x=mx (mx=min[x], which (notably) derives itself in the con-text).

 

For otherwise, in contradiction to Up, the same number of mv (in mx) may in one case be stable, in the other mean completion; Up de-fines that identical is identical, not that very similar must be very similar, but it can be assumed to be valid, so to speak in accordance with the spirit of Up:

 

Up) x=y; [{z}xx]=[{z}yy].

 

And if mx consists of the same number of mv, then mx definitely are very similar, except for position (thus even though they are different (exists in different positions)).

 

This which of course means that stability occurs when mx reaches n number of mv, either directly in the space contraction, or after a cer-tain (short) period of absorption.

 

Stable mx is thus smallest x which are completed if they are cleaved or separate mv off (this directly/immediately or after a certain (short) period of instability). Separate mv off, which mx must be able to do, so that no possibility for eternal mx exists:

 

All stable mx can separate mv off (mv so to speak falls off, away from mx) and are directly (or nearly directly) completed when they se-parate mv off or are cleaved (by other mx).

 

What properties have (stable) mx? Well, in order to hold together more firmly in clusters of mx (x={mx}), the cluster of mx not is like loose sand, then mx must be able to attract each other, which given that mx (and a) is completed if mx tries to send something out (amx) means that mx in that case just only have attraction force, mx have so to speak an invisible hand that brings other mx to mx, which is un-intuitive, an unintuitive quasiholistical force. This the absurd excluded that mx so to speak have grapnels which they can throw at each other and haul each other in with, or that they can send out a (contradicting I), the latter which just only is absurd, that mx can be so ad-vanced that they can send satellites (a) out, which can grab hold of other mx and pull/drag them towards (mother-)mx, no, definitely not:

 

mx are "dead" not very advanced things/entities (which especially not have "hooks" or "grapnels", or can send a out).

 

Especially magnetism seems to imply that mx have this (unintuitive bare, pure) attraction force, because without attraction force must mx (outmost, in magnetic fields) be thrusted (see further below) around in its "circular" path, which just only seems absurd/impossible. With (mx-)attraction force, magnetism is explained so to speak by that the tail attracts the head, with which of course magnetic fields can circulate. Even movement in accordance with "the empiri" is difficult to explain without (mx-)attraction force (see further below). And that x are "fixed", for example man to Earth, is also difficult to explain without attraction force, because without attraction force it is only thrust movements (see further below) that can "fixate" x, so to speak can hold, bring x into place.

 

Given that mx have attraction (force), then given I(/Up) mx may only be able to switch between being attracting, repelling or neutral (neither attracting nor repelling), which can be ruled out given that mx are "dead" things (it is too advanced for them):

 

mx have (constant) attraction force (and only attraction force, with which repellation (of course) is thrust movement (see further below)).

 

If the mx-attraction force is sent out with infinite speed, then mx with this its attraction force =E in accordance with T2 (Everything infi-nite is in accordance with T2 identical to (identically) E), of course contradictorily, and with finite speed the question is how the mx-at-traction force can "know" in which direction it shall attract, of course towards mx, it is quite evident that it cannot "know" that (as the "dead" phenomenon mx is, including the attraction force it maybe have):

 

If mx have attraction force, then (all; I) mx have itself a surrounding finite attraction field attracting towards mx.**

 

An attraction which principally also can attract the room itself, because if mx can attract other mx, which then consists of mv, then mx al-so can attract the room itself, which then also consists of mv, with which room-movement caused by mx is defined, which perhaps can become mx-creating; mx-attraction tends so to speak to mush up space around x, which can be argued to be an argument against mx ha-ving attraction force, without further going into that.

 

Another form of space-movement which also perhaps can become mx-creating, is created by stable mx which, already mentioned, thrusts(/pushes) mv away, this especially of course when mx "jumps" (see further what immediately follows), or more commonly expressed moves.

 

If mx remains (is) in the same position, then mx (of course) not has moved, but mx must "jump" a bit, a distance, without being in that di-stance, if mx moves (continuous movement not exists, unintuitively, but so it then rationally just only is):***

 

mx "jumps" (when moving).

 

Given this, and provided that it is a matter of stable mx which not cleaves each other, then a "jumping", "thrusting" mx (superpositional-ly) just only arises in (a "thrusted") mx, with which mx so to speak cannot know where mx is coming from, which if mx appears com-pletely covering mx, which principally is the case if mx and mx (to their extent) are smallest volumes, or if the "central point" of mx ap-pears in the "central point" of mx, means that mx must "jump" unconditionally stochastically (completely random, in any direction), which contradicts the "empirical" observation that x can move in definite directions (with which mxx also must be able to do so). If mx and mx not are smallest volumes, and the "central point" of mx not appears in the "central point" of mx, then mx is "flipped" in some direction depending on how mx appears in mx, which also not define definite movement (but also that can be defined to define uncon-ditionally stochastic thrust-movement, even if mx, in accordance with Up, "jumps" in exactly the same direction if thrusting mx ap-pears exactly (identically) in the same way/place in mx, then given that the "central point" of mx not appears in the "central point" of mx and that mx and mx not are smallest volumes). But for (more) definite movements, an ad hoc assumption must be made, namely that mx hands over directional information to (communicates with) mx, to at least reasonably "jump" in a certain direction, which definitely not is intuitive (if anything is as unintuitive as something can be), but, shall "the empiri" be believed in so:

 

A thrusted mx "jumps" at least reasonably in a thrusting mx "jump"-direction (through that thrusting mx passes directional information over to thrusted mx, this then in accordance with the "empiri"); How thrusting mx "jumps", if at all, after a thrust, is not specifically de-fined, but close at hand is to assume that they "jump" unconditionally stochastically, that the thrusted, initially "resting", mx also "thrusts" the thrusting mx, but as "resting" of course not can pass over directional information, by which unconditionally stochastic "jumps" are the only (rational) alternative, then for the thrusting mx after their thrusts on thrusted mx.

 

Individual, not (by other mx) attracted mx (which hardly is particularly common, but for the sake of the analysis it is presupposed here anyway), must all the time be thrusted to be kept moving. Which means that thrusted mx, without the aid of exogenous attraction, must belong to an x(={mx}), especially a slightly larger x, to be able to move a little further (and more linearly) on their own,**** in which case initially thrusted or attracted mxx starts a (successive) thrust-movement (Fr) in x, which if strong enough drags with it (through Fr's attraction force) remaining, non-thrusted mxx. These other mx which firstly, if they are dragged along by Fr, tends to initiate new thrust-movements, which so to speak keep Fr going, and secondly by their attraction force (on Fr) affect, control the direction of Fr. If Fr is too strong x tears apart, Fr leaves x (even if Fr of course also is x), perhaps dragging with it some parts of the other, non-thrusted mxx.

 

T1 is the fundamental theorem of the preceding World view, the E-theory, in accordance with which Nothing so to speak not even is 0*=[non-extension (without position)], which intuitively (at least) is E(=∞*), and thus not is Nothing: 0* exists as positionless so to speak everywhere and nowhere, then defining (at least) E, which in its own way confirms T1 (and it must be claimed to be intuitive that Noth-ing seen as not even being non-extension (per se) not is existence); E≠0* E+E≠0*+E; Lp E≠E; 0*E, Up E=0*; Kp. But Lp is then unreliable, so this proof must then be taken with a grain of salt (even if the result is intuitive, everything previously considered, especially concerning T2 in the Lp-section).