Why something instead of nothing?

SciWriter said:
In short, by counting photons, we find that for every 10 billion matter/anti-matter annihilations, early on, there was one matter particle left over, so this is but a very slight break of symmetry, but enough that most or all of the anti-matter is gone. It is not necessarily what shouldn’t have happened, though, for during expansion, and especially during inflation, there is no equilibrium, as a lot of stuff is separated very quickly in a really short time.
Click to expand...
The reason for the assymetry is yet to be resolved.

In fact, it is one of the most important unsolved features of the universe. The idea you give that there is one matter particle left over for every 10 billion matter/anti-matter collisions is just speculation, but still doesn't explain why that asymmetry should occur.

Baryon Asymmetry

Also, if the universe should equal nothing then there should be no assymetry at all (not even one per 10 billion) as nothing is completely perfect and cannot contain any asymmetry - as then it would not be nothing as it could be defined through the asymmetry.


As such, too, the virtual particles of the pairs were separated so quickly that they couldn’t get back together to ‘go back in’. Could be something like that for gravity, too.

Symmetry is an inescapable conclusion, and if super-partners are found, then nature will have used all possible symmetries, as all the rest are already employed.

Matter and anti-matter, space versus time, polarity of charge, mass versus gravity, and others all play a part, as exposing symmetry; so, the ultimate answer is to be found in why symmetry absolutely has to be, no other option possible, and, of course, a causeless prime mover can’t have any, unless it has all of them, as equal, and this is Symmetry.
Click to expand...
Observation tells us that there are asymmetry between matter/anti-matter, so it may not be a fact that symmetry absolutely has to be. I'm not saying that it is a fact that it doesn't have to be either, there could be a symmetrical explanation why there isn't a equal amount of matter/anti-matter too, such as anti-matter possessing anti-gravity (which could mean that it is completely seperated from us, and perhaps even have formed another universe). All we know is that the observable universe has that asymmetry, so we can't conclude that symmetry must be true in all circumstances.

They haven't been able to measure if anti-matter have anti-gravity as they have so small amounts of it (it would still follow ordinary space-curvature as it couldn't do much to bend it the other way).
 
SciWriter said:
True, as it needs more. Without the baryon asymmetry the universe would be empty of baryons, which would be a lot empty, so the asymmetry is one reason why we exist.
Click to expand...

At the moment of the BB matter and antimatter, according to known physics of cosmology, should have been created in equal in amounts, this should have resulted in the two forms of matter coming together and totally annihilating each other in one colossal primordial explosion, leaving a dead symmetrical universe containing only radiant energy in the form of Gamma Rays.

Luckily for us the total annihilation between the two types of matter did not happen and we were left with a asymmetrical universe containing a predominance of matter relative to antimatter.

Not really topic but just added for interest!
 
Alan McDougall said:
Something instead of nothing?

Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at "least something exists". There is a Universe, we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.

Many physicists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is. I cannot believe that we will find “A fact of Everything” scientifically; I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory scientifically answer to this final most profound of questions, ultimate of all questions. “Why is there something instead of nothing?”

By nothing, I mean the un-existence of everything or the total absence of existence. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time a total non-existence of everything. A mind-boggling, brain-, brain-numbing and brain- twisting overwhelming concept, terrifying, frightening, too awful to contemplate and impossible think about, without going insane and totally beyond understanding of any human genius. Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy. (Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.)
Click to expand...

Finally!
To be honest, I was a bit disappointed. Everybody seemed to be talking at the wrong level about 'nothing'.

Some mathematicians even refer to absolute nothing as R^(-1), since R^0 still is something, namely an empty set. R^(-1) doesn't even have a power set!
Now that is what I call void! It blows my mind, or rather implodes my mind.:eek:
 
Merlijn said:
Why does my 0 (zero) look like an o ('oh')?
Click to expand...

THAT BLANKETY BLANK ZERO

Euclid and Pythagorus never even thought of it,
Perhaps not needing it for geometry;
So it was and wasn’t ‘Greek’ to them.

Aristotle was deathly afraid of it.
Even the word ‘naughty’ came from it.

‘0’ had a chilly reception everywhere,
It’s rounded symbol enclosing nothing,
As if it could be captured,
But ‘nothing’ never changed,
Being the same even if you took it away.

Humans stumbled on zero
And nothing by accident,
Then recoiled in horror, fearing it, reviling it,
And sometimes even banning it outright,
As some kind of evil influence.

After many centuries, it seemed to be tamed,
Put in its place, as a simple little placeholder.
Then the beast reared its ugly head for real,
Misbehaving like a monster right and left:

It brought instant death by multiplication,
And wrought total absurdity through division,
Still halting our expensive computers.

It exploded into the ambiguous fog of infinity;
It ran away from us in calculus,
Sliding us down the slippery slope
Of closing in on it but never reaching it.

It spawned ghosts such as negative numbers,
Imaginaries, and those ephemeral infinitesimals.

Both the genie and the genius
Had been let out of the bottle,
And the goose egg still
Confounds and confuses,
No one knowing zilch about it,
It creating paradoxes left and right.​
 
lol

Actually, I really wondered why the font is such that the zero is more round than egg-shape (like I am used to). Maybe I should alter my font settings.
 
Nothing is nothing so of no regard? If one defines nothing, give it abilities or properties, then it becomes something?

But "Does everything extend infinitely, in all ways?"
 
How about this idea?

Existence is information. The information content of everything and nothing is the same: zero. Pure symmetry has all information as equal. The singularity changed form, into a universe, still containing everything—and that is why it has to be so large.
 

“IT” FROM BIT

Information IS Reality?

A quantum entity can remain
In an indefinite superposition
Of an “everywhere and nowhere” indefinitely,
Since, perhaps, the expenditure
Of gravitational energy is so negligible
That it doesn’t “matter”.

At macroscopic levels, such as with us,
Collapse to a definite place
Occurs in a zillionth of a second.

Somewhere in between the tiny and the large,
Say, something like a spec of dust,
Collapse may even take a second or so
For gravity to collapse it to one place.

That was introductory,
So, now, what is “it” from bit
Exactly, for a quantum entity?

A “bit” is what we have
When we gain information
About a quantum entity,
Such as its location or momentum
From an observation, a mark,
Or some recording.

This is called “registration”,
Whether done by a person,
A device, or a piece of mica;
In other words.
Anything that can preserve a record.

Only then does the quantum entity
Become an actual “it”;
So, “it” comes from “bit”,
Which is information.

Until then, the “quantum entity”
Was not yet an “it”,
As there was no objective reality gained.

The laws of quantum physics, then,
Only tell us what may happen;
While a measurement tells us
What is happening (or what did happen).

Perhaps, then, it is that
Information sits at the core of physics.

The total universe would be the big “It”
That arises from the myriad yes-no choices
Of measurement (the “bits”).

So, it would be that information underlies reality;
However, this information is not just
What we learn about the world;
It is what makes the world!

An “it” from bit reality example:
When a photon is absorbed,
And thereby “measured”,
An unsplittable bit of information
Is added to what we know about the world,
While, at the same time,
It creates the reality
Of the place and time
Of that photon’s interaction.

Before its absorption,
That photon had no true reality.
The universe would seem
To be made out of discrete quanta.

Another example:
Concentrating on their spins,
A two-electron system contains two bits.

For example, they might be
“The spins in the z direction are parallel,”
And “The spins in the x direction are antiparallel”.

The two bits are thereby used up,
And the state is completely described;
Yet, no statement is made
About the direction of spin
Of one electron or the other.

The entire description consists
Of relative statements, or correlations.

This means that as soon as one spin
Is measured along a certain direction,
The other one is fixed,
Even if it happens to be far away.

Thus, quantum entangled particles do not have
Pre-existing properties, such as polarization,
That are independent of any observation.

This is the fall of naive realism
[At that level].

The result is so random
That not even God could know the answer.

Thus, randomness is ultimately
A consequence of the finiteness
Of the information.

A quantum system can carry only
A limited amount of information,
Which is sufficient only
For a single measurement.

Two particles collide,
And in so doing
Enter a state of limitation.

In terms of information theory that means
That after the collision the entire information
Is smeared over both particles,
Rather than the individual particles
Carrying the information.

And that means the entire information we have
Pertains to the relationship
Between both particles.

For that reason, by measuring the first particle
We can anticipate the speed of the second.
But the speed of the first particle
Is entirely random.

Quantum information is
Such that a bit can be 0 or 1;
A measured particle ends up
Either here or there.

But if a particle carries only
That one bit of information,
It will have none left over
To specify its location
Before the measurement,
Because the information was not sufficient.

Randomness is reality’s bedrock.

What about further on up.

It would seem, then, that,
Somehow, “less is more”,
But also that “more is different”.

When elementary units
Are put together,
It is that we get something
That is more than
The sum of the units.

For instance,
A substance consists
Of many molecules,
Gaining properties of
Temperature and pressure
That no one molecule has.

It, too, may be a
Solid or a liquid or a gas,
Yet, no one molecule
Is solid or liquid or gas.

When enough simple elements
Are stirred together,
There is hardly any limit
To what can result;

Thus, the complexity of the universe
As a whole does not preclude
An extremely simple element
Such as a bit of information
From being what
The universe is made of.

Does “more is different”, then,
Have something to do
With “it from bit”?

(Gleaned from various readings
Of Penrose, Anton Zeillinger,
And John Wheeler)​
 
Gleanings that I found somewhere:

Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies, 1983, 162) 


The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24) 


Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, 1994, 32) 


[Virtual particle pairs] are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute - only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters. 

In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow & Silk, 1993, 65-66) 


In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25)


Vacuum Fluctuations
And the Origin of the Universe

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote] 


There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses. 

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction? 

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32) 


Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247) 


In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe. 

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself. 

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang. 

The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design. 

The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996) 


Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space... 

Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization? 

Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
 
Alan McDougall said:
At the moment of the BB matter and antimatter, according to known physics of cosmology, should have been created in equal in amounts, this should have resulted in the two forms of matter coming together and totally annihilating each other in one colossal primordial explosion, leaving a dead symmetrical universe containing only radiant energy in the form of Gamma Rays.

Luckily for us the total annihilation between the two types of matter did not happen and we were left with a asymmetrical universe containing a predominance of matter relative to antimatter.

Not really topic but just added for interest!
Click to expand...
It is topic though and I think it's a good point. I think anything dealing with the initial conditions of the Big Bang is topic as it could explain why there are something instead of nothing.

It makes sense to look as close to the Big Bang as possible, as the universe transforms with age and could become less similar to the cause of it as time moves on. In other words; the closer we are to the Big Bang, the closer we are to the cause of it and the closer we are to the cause of it, the closer we are to the answer to the question why there is something rather than nothing.
 
sigurdV said:
The topic is Ancient! A fellow named Parmenides
gave around three thousand years ago
a satisfactory treatment of the problem.

He claimed that the statement:" Nothing is." is self contradictory and therefore not true!
Not much of his texts have survived only the claim but not the proof so lets try ourselves:

We begin by firmly claiming that: Nothing is!
Eh... we are saying that it indeed is so that nothing is!
Oh! Arent we saying that it IS so that it is SO that nothing is?
We are actually saying that something IS when we are saying that nothing is!
But if something is... then nothing is not...
So it is really so that we have proved that something is and nothing is not.

If we change the tense used in the proof
we can likewise prove that nothing was not
and that nothing will never be.

This is Logic as Ancient as we can trace it. :)
Click to expand...

1. After "Nothing" comes "Everything", its the collection of all objects satisfying the statement function: x is.
And nothing except "nothing" satisfies the complementary function x is not.
Which means that all not existing objects are identical to each other.

2. Perhaps Im now leaving the standard interpretation of Parmenides,
it seems he thought that one can not think of what is not...
If so, how did he ever come to think of nothing?
While in interpretation mode Id like to state that Parmenides was the first to express (or hint at)
the first law of Thermodynamics, and the first to conceive the "Block Time" concept used in Physics.
The last concept of his being based on a faulty concept of change.
(Had he succeeded also in giving a proper definition of change I would seriously consider the idea of him being an Alien ;) )
 
SciWriter said:
How about this idea?

Existence is information. The information content of everything and nothing is the same: zero. Pure symmetry has all information as equal. The singularity changed form, into a universe, still containing everything—and that is why it has to be so large.
Click to expand...
I dont like it! Their information contents should be each others inverses! If the information content of nothing is zero then the information of everything is infinite! I have read that Parmenides thought the everything to be infinite...Im not so sure since his pupil Zenon did not accept infinity. But...perhaps infinity actually follows from P:s theory? (When its properly formulated.) Then perhaps our universe is not the same as everything there is?
 
Last edited:
sigurdV said:
I dont like it! Their information contents should be each others inverses!
Click to expand...

'Everything' would be like the Library of Babel that contains all possible books, which would then contain as much information as the empty hut next door (zero).
 
SciWriter said:
'Everything' would be like the Library of Babel that contains all possible books, which would then contain as much information as the empty hut next door (zero).
Click to expand...
"Everything",means the collection of all objects satisfying the statement function: x is.
Perhaps you would care to explain why all books contain the same information as no books?

To make it really simple for you, its enough if you prove that some book
(say : History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell) contains as much information as no book.

Looking at your post I suspect your Library of Babel is supposed to contain an ACTUAL copy of each and every possible book making a diagonal argument possible, proving there is no such library...But nothing would be proved by that that couldnt be proved by simpler means: An actual book contains an actual amount of energy, and from one book infinitely many books can be produced by selective and creative quotation. But there isnt enough energy in the universe to produce all possible quotational books from say: Bertrands book. So let it suffice with ONE book. And a proof that its informational content is zero.
 
Last edited:
sigurdV said:
"Everything",means the collection of all objects satisfying the statement function: x is.
Perhaps you would care to explain why all books contain the same information as no books?

To make it really simple for you, its enough if you prove that some book
(say : History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell) contains as much information as no book.
Click to expand...

A lot of the possible books would contain gibberish.
 
THE VAULT OF EVERYTHING

A spirit led us onward,
Who knows how,
Toward the Library of Babel,
Which contains all the possible books
That could ever be written,
Including, for example,
Better and worse Shakespeare plays,
Brand new plays,
Books with only one word
Of difference among them,
Everyone’s life story
(Even the parts not lived yet),
The Secrets of the Universe,
The true Theory of Everything,
A lot of gibberish, and so on,
As we can’t imagine.

[In fact, I found this story in there,
In a short story book of mine-to-be,
So I just copied it to here.
(yes, it said that too.)]

A clear night sky of infinite possibility
Showered us with photons,
Lighting our way
To the fountain of all knowledge.

“True enlightenment awaits me there,”
I offered to the guiding spirit.

“Don’t be so sure,
Although you might chance upon it,
For the deep truths of enlightenment
Are as needles surrounded and consumed
By the near infinities of the stacks
Of deception and confusion,
For, remember,
EVERYTHING exists in this library.”

“It must be a massive building,” I remarked.

“Well, yes, but it’s bigger on the inside
Than on the outside;
Otherwise, it would have been
Larger than the universe.”

“Bigger on the inside? How?”

“Well, you’ll see, but I’m not sure how—
Maybe through some dimensional extensions—
Or perhaps it’s constructed digitally
And expands as you move about, somehow,
To conserve space; but, even with compression,
It’s still hundreds of miles wide
In every direction—on the inside.”

“What is Everything, in principle?”

“Every arrangement possible,
Given whatever constraints there are, if any.
Of course, not all paths may be stable,
Sensible, or last very long.”

“That’s a lot—
Why do we live on this particular path
That our Universe has taken?”
“Who the heck knows!”

“What about making the forms of
Substance(s) of a Universe?”

“Well, in the case of the emission
Of the secondary substance(s), let’s say,
It’s every one of the ‘alphabets’
That can be conceived by
The Timeless-Formless-Motionless,
Plus, all of its resultant workable combinations
And interactions of substance.
For this Babel library,
It is every possible arrangement
Of words in every language,
With punctuation, too, naturally.”

“Hey, here it is. I can’t wait!”

Upon entering, they saw stacks of books
In every direction, even up and down,
Stretching toward infinity.

“Where’s the card catalog?”

“There can’t be any,
For many titles and descriptions
Of similar books are too long to differentiate.
Think of the books themselves
As the card catalog.”

“How’s the library organized?”
“It can’t be. It would take forever.”

“Who runs it?”

“Borges is the lone librarian,
But he’s somewhere in the back
And hasn’t been seen for decades.”

“OK, I’ll pick some at random.”
(Hours pass)

“Anything?”

“No, mostly mumbo-jumbo,
But I found one on a table
That someone must have treasured.”

“Oh, yes, he spent his entire lifetime here.
It’s Plato’s ‘Beyond Metaphysics’.”

“Wow! That’s been lost for thousands of years.
But is it the true version?”

“Who knows.”

“This library contains
No information whatsoever!”

“True, but there’s another library next door
That also claims to have Everything.”

“You mean that little ‘hut’
No, wait—I get it—
The library next door is empty.”

“Yes, for the All sums to the None.”
“Wait‚ I found two more good ones
In the stack right near the entrance…”

“One is by you and one is by your friend, Rascal.
You put those there in the first stack
So someone would find them easily
And read them, even though they exist again
Somewhere else in the library.”

“Yes, and I’m even going to let them
Stick out a little on the shelf.”


…In another chilling Borges’s story,
I read the actual book that he refers to,
The one whose infinite pages
Are ever-changing,
For that’s how books appear to me
In my night dreams.

Sometimes there are even digits occurring
In the middle of words,
Plus, if I look away and then back,
Then the contents of the page have changed.

One time, when the page stabilized
To quite understandable words,
I realized I was reading
Something very profound.

In fact, it was the Ultimate Answer.

I dared not look away
Nor try to copy it with a dream pencil,
But, instead, tore out the page
And crumbled it into my hand,
Then forced myself awake
(it was a lucid dream).

When I awoke,
I had the page in my hand,
And it said:

This page intentionally left blank,
Except for the above,
And the above, etc.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top