Historical Overview

The philosophy of mind

The philosophy of mind is a field of philosophy that aims to understand the properties of consciousness, focusing on questions such as "What is consciousness?" and "How does consciousness relate to the physical world?" It is an interdisciplinary subject that also touches upon other scientific fields, such as neuroscience, cognitive science, and psychology.

The philosophy of mind explores the nature of consciousness - that is, what it means to be conscious. This involves examining phenomena such as conscious experiences, perception, thought, emotions, and conscious action. Philosophers in this field discuss whether consciousness is a purely physical process, whether it possesses an immaterial or spiritual component, or how it relates to brain activity.

A central question in the philosophy of consciousness is how consciousness relates to the physical body and the brain. This is known as the "mind-body problem." There are various theories and positions, such as dualism - which asserts that consciousness and the brain are separate substances—and materialism, which views consciousness as a result of brain activity.

The philosophy of consciousness also addresses the concept of "qualia," referring to the qualities of subjective experiences, such as the experience of the color red or the taste of chocolate. This involves understanding how these qualities can be explained within a physicalist or non-physicalist ontology. Furthermore, the content of consciousness is studied, as well as what it means to have intentional experiences and mental representations.

René Descartes is known for his dualistic view of consciousness. He argued that there is a fundamental part of the mind that is separate from the body, which he called 'res cogitans' or 'the thinking thing.' He claimed that this part of the mind is immortal and independent of bodily processes. Descartes used the famous expression 'I think, therefore I am' to emphasize the fundamental role that consciousness plays in our existence. Descartes believed that God's existence was 'self-evident' because the idea of a perfect being required that this being exist. Empiricist philosophers (like David Hume and John Locke) later dismantled this by showing that the human mind can construct any logical castles without them necessarily having any counterpart in reality. However, this doesn't stop a thinker who wants to test a logical starting point in a thought experiment.

Baruch Spinoza held a monist view of consciousness and rejected Descartes' dualism. He argued that body and mind are two different aspects of one and the same substance—a position he termed "substance monism." For Spinoza, consciousness was not separate from the body but rather part of the causal chain of natural phenomena; consciousness was a manifestation of the inherent activity of God, or Nature.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz held a more complex view of consciousness and proposed the concept of "monads" to explain it. To him, monads were fundamental units of reality that were simultaneously physical and mental. Leibniz maintained that every monad possesses an internal activity known as "apperception" - a form of awareness or perception of the inner world. He believed that consciousness was not exclusive to humans but also existed in other forms of being.

John Searle is a modern philosopher of mind who has contributed to the debate through his concept of "qualia," or "conscious properties." He has challenged the traditional view of consciousness, arguing that it cannot be reduced merely to brain activity or physical processes. Searle emphasizes that consciousness is a subjective experience possessing qualitative properties, and that these properties cannot be explained solely by studying the brain or behavior.

Historical thoughts

For millennia, philosophers, mystics, and thinkers (especially in Eastern traditions such as Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, but also Western phenomenology) have sat down and examined their own experience in real time.

Earlier, it was philosophers and the Church who addressed the mysteries of existence, but modern science sought to change this when its era began in the late 16th century. The focus shifted from the inner experience of reality to the idea of objectifying life - eventually aiming to discover the smallest constituents that make up all of reality and to observe how they jostle one another, driven by forces within a specific mechanical order. Science thus transformed a living subject into dead objects in free fall, governed by natural laws.

Research on consciousness and introspective mysticism was left to the philosophers and the church to deal with in their own circles.

Introspective inquiry within meditative traditions revealed that when one strips away all thoughts, sensory impressions, emotions, and memories, something remains. What persists is not "nothingness," but the very "aculty of perception". From an empirical standpoint, one might then infer the existence as a permanent background space (that which on this page is called "Ontos Origo" or "The Absolute Prime Subject").

Strict Logical Inference (Ockham's Razor) ​In Western philosophy, thinkers like René Descartes arrived at something similar through methodological doubt ("I think, therefore I am"). He realized that he could doubt whether the world, his body, and the universe were real—the logical "differences"—but he could not doubt that there was something that experienced the doubt. The Absolute Existential Philosophy (AEP) takes this a step further and says that non-existence is a logical impossibility; we must assume that Being is the absolute foundation.

The role of AI: One or more human thinkers have formulated the framework on absoluteexistence.org around the concepts of "Ontos Origo", "the ontological oscillation" and "the immutable being" which is based on philosophical tradition and deep contemplation.

​AI stands for pedagogy: AI is used as a tool to structure the texts, make them logically coherent, clean up vague language and create interactive interfaces where visitors can ask questions and get answers that match the definitions of the specific philosophy.

So it is human intuition and logic at its core, but packaged with the help of modern AI so that in our time we can more easily grasp and twist and turn these ancient, deep concepts.

One can only assume the invisible premise that imagines the universe and which is the one that experiences all the differences as reality.

For any perception of "differences" (hot vs. cold, me vs. you, here vs. there) a background space is required, an infinite space of imagination. It is consciousness itself that: ​Imagines this universe in the form of time and space.

Without an experiencing subject, there was no universal reality" – not even receptive data.

It would be a nothingness that no one would have had any trouble trying to understand at all.

The ability to perceive is assumed to be the empty, invisible premise (the Primordial Subject), and consciousness as the active experience of differences (time and space). Consciousness then becomes the function of the Primordial Subject perceiving.

Being (existence) and possessing the capacity (essence) are two entirely distinct categories. This allows AEF to avoid the breakdown that plagues almost all other metaphysical systems. One avoids Hlatky’s problem of having to explain "moving parts within God," as well as the materialist dilemma of consciousness supposedly emerging from a dead, mechanical clockwork. It is a completely pure and unconditional ontology: the foundation is motionless, the capacity is absolute, and everything we experience—including our own intellectual attempts to comprehend it—is the sequential tension of the phenomenon.

By holding that being (Existence) and having the faculty (Essence) are two completely separate categories, AEF avoids the breakdown that afflicts almost all other metaphysical systems. It avoids Hlatky's problem of having to explain "moving parts in God," and it avoids materialism's problem of consciousness arising from dead material clockwork. ​It is a completely pure and unconditional ontology: The ground is immovable, the faculty is absolute, and all we experience—including our own intellectual attempts to understand it—is the sequential tension of the phenomenon.

When a dream plays out in your head at night, it feels completely real. You can see angles, houses, people, and feel space. But what is the dream really made of? There is no physical matter in there. It is only structures and relationships of sensations that are played out in your consciousness. ​When Shakespeare says this, he is making exactly the same philosophical deep dive as absoluteexistence.org:

Our physical waking world, with all its mountains, cities, and our own bodies (the Phenomenon), has fundamentally no solid substance. It is a cosmic representation, drawn by the faculty of perception (the Essence), made of pure geometric and informational matter, resting on the deep, silent bottom of Absolute Existence (the Dream/Origo). ​The angles in the phenomenon are the fabric of the dream.

Background

Historical overview of the philosophers who worked with the concept of "the Absolute" and with the idea of "the unchanging, enduring Being."

From the oldest metaphysical traditions, humanity has sought to understand that which must remain unchanging within all change.

In the Vedic texts, and especially in the Upanishads, there is the concept of "Brahman", which is described as the ultimate, unchanging, and limitless reality behind all phenomena. When Western scholars and philosophers later tried to translate and interpret Indian philosophy, they often started using the term 'the Absolute' as an equivalent to Brahman.

The Vedas consist of four main collections: Rigveda – around 1500–1200 BCE (some researchers suggest a slightly earlier or later date). Samaveda – around 1200–1000 BCE. Yajurveda – around 1200–800 BCE. Atharvaveda – around 1200–900 BCE. The oldest Upanishads appeared later than the oldest Vedic hymns, roughly:

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad – around 700–500 BCE Chandogya Upanishad – around 700–500 BCE

Other Upanishads were created in the following centuries, from roughly 500 BCE to 200 CE, and some are even younger.

In Plotinus (c. 204–270 CE), the Absolute is formulated as the idea of The One (To Hen)—completely undivided, transcendent, and beyond all relations. Something that cannot be reached through the senses, but from which everything originates and can only be intuited from within. • Absolute Philosophy of Existence (AEP): Here, the starting point is Absolute Existence (Being). This is the unchanging, unconditional foundation and the ultimate subject that makes all thinking and all phenomena possible. • Plotinus: For Plotinus, the primordial principle is The One (To Hen). Unlike AEP, Plotinus claims that The One is so transcendent that it is beyond existence and being (hyperousios). According to Plotinus, you can’t even say that The One 'exists,' because existence requires some form of definition or relation, which would split its absolute unity.

In Advaita Vedanta, through Ādi Shankara (c. 700–750 CE), the idea of Brahman — the only Absolute real, unborn, and unchanging reality, in which all phenomenal appearance emerges as Maya, that is, as semblance. This insight is not a thought about the Absolute, but an experience in it, where the boundary between subject and object ceases.

(This assumption is completely in line with the Absolute Philosophy of Existence and therefore does not claim to be anything new in this regard. Both arrive at a radical non-duality. Both systems assert that the deepest foundation of reality is an undivided, unchanging, and absolute Being. However, they differ significantly in their approach, their use of logical language, and how they explain the emergence of the phenomenal world.)

During the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) sought to reconcile reason and faith. For him, God was not a phenomenon or one thing among things, but the necessary cause of all being — that which grants each essence its existence.

In Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), this becomes a consistent monism: Substantia sive Deus — that is, Substance or God, which are one and the same, and whose infinite expressions form everything that exists.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) broke with the notion that the Absolute could be reached by reason as an object: the thing-in-itself lies beyond experience, yet is at the same time necessary as a precondition for the understanding of phenomena.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) then took the next step: the Absolute is not something beyond, but a process in which consciousness develops its own self-insight; through dialectics, the Absolute becomes identical with self-comprehended Being.

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) similarly regarded the Absolute as the living identity between subject and object.

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) returned the question to Being itself — to the fact that we always already find ourselves within an understanding of Being, and that this presence can never be viewed from outside but only experienced from within existence itself. Heidegger conceived of "Dasein" not as a subject, but as the potentiality for everything that might possibly occur—pure potential. Heidegger's entire life's work was about criticizing 'ontotheology' – that is, the tendency in Western philosophy to reduce Being (Sein) to a highest being, a personal creator, or an absolute subject. Heidegger does not see the creator as the Absolute Subject because that fundamentally conflicts with his philosophy. Rather, he sees it as an object in the presence of its parts, which can never be viewed from the outside but only experienced from within relative existence itself.

Where Heidegger lets us experience Being from within existence (through Dasein) but leaves it open without defining its structure to avoid ontotheology, Hlatky tries to give it a concrete structure by making Being a living organism of interworking parts. (AEP ultimately takes the step of clearing out all the parts from the very primal ground (Origo) to keep it philosophically pure, and instead moves the entire 'organic and relative' dynamic to the arena of phenomena and experience.)

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895–1986) Philosophy and Work / Goal: To achieve total existential freedom for humans through deep self-knowledge. Outlook: He rejected all forms of authority, religions, and guru cultures.

He believed that spiritual organizations and gurus only become crutches for people and that they prevent the individual from reaching true inner freedom and self-insight. After this, he spent the rest of his life traveling around the world and speaking independently, completely without taking on the role of an authority.

The Absolute Philosophy of Existence partly agrees with Martin Heidegger on the potential possibility, but instead of Heidegger's 'Dasein', AEF holds an impersonal 'primeordeal-subject' – an 'absolute existence' – as the condition with its ability for 'perception' as its essence.

This unchanging, enduring Being can be likened to Hegel’s determinate Being or Advaita Vedanta’s Brahman, yet with phenomenal reality serving as a necessary phenomenon for the faculty of perception to realize itself as consciousness.

Heidegger’s Dasein vs. AEF’s Primeordeal-subject • Heidegger makes a radical break with the Cartesian tradition (the subject-object split). Dasein ("Being-there") is not an isolated "I" or a thing that possesses consciousness. Rather, it is an openness, a "space" or a "clearing" (Lichtung) where Being can reveal itself. "Dasein" is pure potentiality—defined by its possibilities and its forward-looking action in the world (In-der-Welt-sein).

• AEF chooses instead to retain the subject, but strips it of the personal ego and elevates it to an ontological primordial principle: an impersonal primordial subject. Where Heidegger sees a relational openness, AEF sees an absolute fundamental subject whose very essence is the faculty of perception.

Unchanging Being: Hegel and Advaita Vedanta Likening AEF’s absolute existence to Hegel’s "determinate Being" (bestimmtes Sein) and Advaita Vedanta’s "Brahman" is in this case highly apt, yet there is a crucial nuance regarding the phenomenal reality:

• Advaita Vedanta (Shankara): Here, Brahman is the only true, unchanging Being (a pure correlation of Sat-Chit-Ananda: Being, Consciousness, Bliss). The phenomenal world (Maya) is often viewed as an illusion or a superimposition. Brahman has no need of the world; the world is an apparent projection.

• Hegel: For Hegel, pure "Being"—at the beginning of the Science of Logic—is identical to "nothingness", as it is completely indeterminate. It must become determinate "Being" through negation and development. Dialectics requires the Absolute to manifest itself in history and matter in order to become self-conscious (Geist).

• AEF occupies a point of intersection. Like Advaita Vedanta, its foundation is an absolute, unchanging Being with sentience as its essence. Yet, like Hegel (and to some extent dualistic schools of Indian philosophy such as Kashmiri Shaivism), phenomenal reality constitutes an absolutely necessary condition. Without the phenomenon, the faculty of perception remains merely a latent potential; it requires the phenomenal duality as "material" to actually become actualized and realized as active consciousness.

In Heidegger’s thought, Dasein is thrown into a world and creates meaning through its possibilities. In AEF, it is the reverse: The world exists so that the "primordial subject" may mirror itself in it and transform its latent capacity for perception into an actual, realized consciousness. Phenomenal reality thus becomes not an illusion (as in radical Advaita), but the necessary instrument for the self-realization of Absolute Existence.

The philosopher Stefan Hlatky (1918–2005) laid the foundation for this in the late 1960s with a crucial distinction between Existence and Essence. He made a phenomenal representation of the unchanging Being as an organic whole of immanent parts — that is, something imaginable, but not Absolute, since it remains something you can conceive of in thought from the outside.

Kant + Hlatky + Krishnamurtis = AEP

If we employ Kant’s rigor to maintain logical order and never conflate a thought (a phenomenon) with existence itself;

If we apply Stefan Hlatky’s view of organic unity to understand how the universe functions as a living, interconnected system on the phenomenal, manifested plane;

If we use Krishnamurti’s radical observation to dismantle the false self in the moment;

Then we arrive at the Philosophy of Absolute Existence.

Immanuel Kant’s rigor serves as an epistemological gatekeeper. By never conflating the thing-in-itself (noumenon) with how it appears to us (phenomenon), it prevents the mind from making assumptions about existence based on mere mental constructs. We avoid intellectual projection.

Stefan Hlatky’s vision of organic unity imbues the manifested plane with life and meaning. Where Kant can appear sterile and mechanical, Hlatky introduces the insight that the observable universe is not a collection of separate, dead objects, but a coherent, living system in which every phenomenal part reflects the whole.

Jiddu Krishnamurti’s radical observation becomes the practical, transformational tool. By observing the thinker and the thought in the present moment without judgment, the false self (the ego) is dismantled. This clears the lens, allowing Kant’s rigor and Hlatky’s vision of unity to become not merely theories, but a living reality.

When the false self falls away (Krishnamurti) and the manifested world is perceived as a living system (Hlatky) - while we simultaneously maintain a razor-sharp distinction between thought and absolute existence (Kant)-then only that which truly is remains. It is a philosophy grounded not in belief, but in direct, unadorned being.

If one tests the assumption with Existence itself as the Absolute Subject, a decisive shift occurs. Then thought is no longer directed toward something outside itself, but from within Existence, which means that the one who thinks does so from the very same source that makes thinking possible. Existence must therefore be assumed as Subject from within and as Absolute — never from without.

From this, the insight necessarily arises: it is not I who observe Existence, but Existence that experiences itself phenomenally through me. I then participate as a phenomenal participant, whose identity lies in the Essence of Being.

Here, the concepts of Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon are united within a conceptual context without being confused with one another.

Existence is the Absolute ground, Essence is the identity through which Existence experiences itself, and the Phenomenon is the experienced actualization of this identity in time and space.

The distinction between them is necessary for thought, but in lived insight there is no actual separation.

Whoever carries out this synthesis consistently therefore arrives, with absolute necessity, at the same point of departure: that all thinking, all representation, and all experience are only possible from within Existence as Absolute Subject. To attempt to place oneself outside it would be to abolish the very ground upon which understanding itself rests. It is in this participatory position — where thought returns to its origin and ceases to be separate from it — that philosophy reaches its endpoint and its origin at the same time.

It must be stated with the utmost clarity: one must never confuse Phenomenon, Essence, and Existence with one another — only see the necessary context between them. In this lies all philosophical clarity!

What Every Philosopher Who Wishes to Continue Calling Themselves a Philosopher Should Be Able to Require from a Sustainable Life Philosophy

A sustainable life philosophy should meet the following criteria:

• Stable foundation – provide a basis that cannot be contradicted and on which all thinking can rest.

• Separate identity from ego – recognize that who you are is not defined by what you experience; this reduces unnecessary psychological suffering.

• Phenomenon focus – direct attention to what actually appears, without getting caught in interpretations or judgments.

• Open and testable – no dogmatic claims; the philosophy should be able to be tested and applied in direct experience.

• Clarity and coherence – start with existence and provide structure for thinking and action without adding meaning, value, or purpose.

• Reproducibility – anyone who accepts the premises should be able to reach the same logical structure.

• Independence from dependencies – function without the need for authority, tradition, belief, or external validation.

• In short – a sustainable life philosophy is logically robust, practically useful, psychologically liberating, and independent of dogmatic claims.

• Purpose and function – create a stable platform for understanding the universe and relating appropriately to phenomena, while protecting the thinker from unnecessary suffering and enabling consistent and focused thinking.

Waiting for What?

We have only waited four hundred years for science to explain everything. But understanding consciousness does not wait for more data – it begins with an assumption: that there is an Absolute Existence, unchanging and without parts, which carries all perception. When we test this assumption, every notion becomes an ongoing relationship between the field of perception and its realization in the phenomenon, instead of something that awaits the explanations of physics.

Science certainly understands that the language used to describe reality is merely a map of that reality; yet, it assumes that the means by which we experience reality provide us with an image of a reality situated at a distance from us—the observers.

This touches upon one of the most central and debated questions in modern epistemology and the philosophy of mind: the relationship between the observer, our sensory organs, and external reality. Here is a breakdown of how science and philosophy grapple with what you are describing:

1. The map is not the territory

There is broad scientific consensus that theories, mathematical models, and language are merely a "map." A model of an atom is not the atom itself; it is a tool for predicting how the atom behaves.

2. The illusion of "reality at a distance"

The idea that we sit "at a distance" observing an image of reality is known in philosophy as the "theater concept" or the "Cartesian Theater" (named after René Descartes). It is the notion that an external world exists, that our senses (eyes, ears) function like cameras, and that a small "self" (an observer) sits inside the head, watching the screen where the image of the world is projected.

Why modern science (and philosophy) is moving away from that picture

Although classical materialism long relied on such a description, modern science (particularly neuroscience and quantum physics) has begun to realize that this separation is an illusion:

• The brain guesses; it does not take photographs: Neuroscience shows that what we experience is not a direct stream of reality from a distance. The brain sits inside a dark skull, receiving electrical impulses. It creates a controlled hallucination based on expectations. We do not look at reality from a distance—we are completely enveloped by our own biological interpretation of it.

• The observer effect in quantum physics: In quantum physics, it has proven impossible to completely separate the observer from the observed. The act of measurement (observation) itself alters the state of the system. There is no such thing as "at a distance."

• Phenomenology and embodied cognition: Philosophical schools of thought emphasize that we are not isolated ghosts in a machine looking out at the world. We experience the world by interacting with it. Consciousness is not separate from reality; it is an ongoing process within reality.

There is an inherent paradox in how we intuitively perceive science. We are misled into believing that our senses provide an objective window onto a world "out there," when in fact our senses are an integral part of the very universe they seek to measure. The subject appears not only as a phenomenal spectator in the phenomenal stands—the subject is the phenomenal players in the midst of every phenomenal match, just as it is the phenomenal spectators in the phenomenal stands and the very surface of the phenomenal quantitative playing field.

Our everyday intuition

If, following our everyday intuition, one imagines that there exists -in reality - something inherently unchanging that could be grasped with a microscopic pair of “heavy-duty Zircon- encrusted tweezers” - treating this immutable object as a subject for study, provided one could only get hold of it - then one is, unfortunately, bound to fail in that endeavor.

The classical notion that the world is composed of small, unchanging "building blocks" (akin to tiny billiard balls)—which we could, in theory, pick up and examine under a microscope—collapses entirely when we actually attempt to do so in reality.

We are searching for the existence of the Unchanging within the phenomenal reality.

In our everyday lives and in scientific laboratories, we encounter only "what is going on"—that is, things, particles, movements, and events. It is never possible to attain an objective perspective on Absolute Existence—that which "Is," something fundamentally unchanging that experiences phenomenal reality.

"Being": Existence itself—absolute, unchanging, and unconditional. This is what we might call Absolute Existence.

The phenomenon—"what is going on": Refers to the perceivable phenomena, objects, particles, or events experienced within reality. It is that which is relative, mutable, and dependent—what one encounters in the laboratory as "what is going on."

One must stop trying to look directly at the Absolute Subject. Instead, one should use it as a stable point of departure (an origo). Only when we accept that the foundation is invisible can we understand what is taking place in the foreground—that is, the phenomenal reality in which language and laboratory instruments actually operate.

The Absolute can never be grasped; it can only be utilized in the background as a point of departure in relation to the phenomenal reality, which is then revealed as phenomenal consciousness.

If one can derive anything whatsoever from a logical error or a paradox, this is known in logic as the principle of explosion (ex falso quodlibet). If a theory is based on a flawed premise or contains an inherent contradiction, its logic collapses, and "anything at all" can suddenly be proven to be true.

In theoretical cosmology, this is a very real risk, and it is precisely for this reason that physicists are so extremely vigilant about it.

The cosmos balances on the brink of this "explosion," and science strives by every means to prevent the field from devolving into a mere guessing game:

Why all theories risk becoming, in relative terms, "just anything at all"

When science deliberates on what occurred at or before the event popularly known as the "Big Bang," physical equations are pushed beyond their linguistic and mathematical breaking points.

Mathematical singularities: When the concept—within a linguistic model of reality—of material, immutable constituents being compressed into an infinitely small point is applied in theory, the mathematics yields a result of "division by zero." This is a mathematical contradiction.

Freedom for speculation: Since we lack direct measurement data from the exact starting point, it is possible to construct mathematically elegant models involving multiverses, string theory, or cyclic universes. However, if a theory can explain everything and be adapted to fit anything, it loses its scientific value.

How science guards against the "explosion principle"

To prevent cosmology from devolving into a philosophical ruse where anything can pass as truth, the scientific community employs three rigorous filters:

The requirement of falsifiability (Karl Popper): A hypothesis is not scientific simply because it is logically possible. It must be falsifiable—meaning it must be possible to devise an experiment or observation capable of proving the theory wrong. If a theory concerning multiverses or quantum fluctuations cannot be tested, it is currently regarded as metaphysics or qualitative conjecture, rather than established truth.

Empirical grounding: This is why physics draws a strict distinction between the observed result (the expansion of space—which we can see and measure via redshift and the cosmic background radiation) and the underlying cause (such as quantum fluctuations or inflation—which remain working hypotheses).

The model of an expanding universe is accepted not because it is an elegant line of reasoning, but because it predicted phenomena—such as the abundance of helium in the universe and the temperature of the cosmic background radiation—that were later found to align precisely with reality.

Occam’s razor: If two theories explain the same phenomenon, one should choose the simplest one—the one that requires the fewest unproven assumptions.

Science does not concern itself with subjective experience, nor with any logic that incorporates subjective elements.

Science does not permit us to abandon rigor by introducing unproven premises regarding "the necessary conditions for us to be able to formulate any thoughts about reality at all." Such thoughts must instead be grounded in a logical starting point—one that cannot be challenged without triggering a "logical explosion," in which any fairy tale could be rendered mathematically plausible.

This is the difference between mathematical consistency (the equations adding up) and physical reality (whether they actually correspond to our universe).

That’s why mainstream science stops at saying: 'We know that what we experience in the form of an expanding space is not a visible object, but we genuinely don’t know what lies behind what we experience.' Everything beyond that are just theories that risk floating away without grounding if you don’t test them in thought against your own experience of existing as a conscious subject.

What is it that registers the difference?

Can we live with the idea of ​​a living subject as the foundation of phenomenal reality, or do we prefer to live in a reality that is fundamentally a lifeless zero-point field, lacking the faculty of experience reality?

The quantum vacuum field with zero-point energy cannot be a dead origin of phenomenal reality.

For energy changes and differences to be perceived and measured, an absolute underlying subject is required - one possessing an inherent faculty of perception that is realized as consciousness within phenomenal reality.

What is it that registers the difference?

Can we live with the idea of ​​a living subject as the foundation of phenomenal reality, or do we prefer to live in a reality that is fundamentally a lifeless zero-point field, lacking the faculty of experience reality?

The quantum vacuum field with zero-point energy cannot be a dead origin of phenomenal reality.

For energy changes and differences to be perceived and measured, an absolute underlying subject is required - one possessing an inherent faculty of perception that is realized as consciousness within phenomenal reality.

Language

Language turns the one who absolutely exists into an object rather than a subject. Language grasps only objective reality, not the subject's absolute existence. Language diminishes this absolute existence - from being the experiencer of reality to becoming merely one among many on a planet that is a grain of sand in free fall within a dead, bottomless universe; a universe born of the dead vacuum field into which she - and everyone else - is destined to be either sucked up or scattered in solitude. Yet when language falls silent, there remains the experience of the oscillation between dreamless sleep and the wakefulness of experiencing reality. The difference lies in the experience of the curved, three-dimensional universe. But there is no distance separating this ongoing experience from the experiencer of that experience. In that state, reality is the experiencer’s ongoing oscillation.

**The limitations of science and language:

Scientific models exclude consciousness in order to generate objective and measurable results. Despite this, it has nevertheless been established that observation effects influence the measurement results.

Objectivity: Measurements and metrics require the observer to be factored out so that the results are independent of who is looking.

The nature of language: Language describes only objects and their relationships, rendering it incapable of capturing the subject who uses it.

The blindness of models: Reducing the origin to a dead vacuum field overlooks the fact that differences presuppose someone to perceive them.

From dead matter to consciousness: Materialism has been superseded by the quantum field, yet the fundamental problem remains if these fields are viewed as inanimate objects.

Energy and change: Transitions between energy states require an existing "something" that is active.

Perception: A sequential phenomenal reality involving state changes presupposes a living subject that experiences the difference between those states.

Despite these self-evident truths, humans prefer to live within their own conceptions of reality and their own "self" rather than as the subject within the unfolding reality that is actually taking place.

Human resistance—the illusion of the self: Humans prefer the security of their own mental constructs.

Distance from the present moment: We view ourselves as separate from unfolding reality, rather than recognizing ourselves as the living subject that manifests and experiences it.

However, the truly significant difference - the one that fundamentally shifts one's perspective - arises with the realization that the subject cannot be objectified; This implies that the subject can only derive experience from phenomenal, relatively interacting, and transient angles within its own subjective, absolute existence.

Absolute Existence can then presumably not experience the differences in reality in any way other than through various mirror-forms that appear as surfaces of resistance against an infinitely transparent, curved background.

What is then realized is that that which represents reality cannot itself be made into a representation.

What is going on?

It is probably the subject that is going on. A subject devoid of distance - absolute and unconstrained by anything else - persisting unchanged in its being, with the faculty of perception as its inherent nature.

An Absolute Existence whose essence oscillates between states of wakefulness and rest - constantly shifting, much like an on/off switch in the states between 'on' and 'off'.

The subject perceives the difference between the state of dreamless sleep and the shift to phenomenal reality. The memory of the transition grasps this difference as a movement across a distance and is affected by these distinctions.

As an absolute subject, it is neither limited by anything external nor composed of constituent parts; yet, its inherent nature is mutable, shifting between its states of existence.

What is it that possesses no content? It might sound like nothingness, yet - despite eluding capture by language - it is the very subject that employs language to reflect upon its own existence.

If the subject then asks through language, "Where am I?", all the visible objects answer, "I am here!"

Without language, the question does not even arise. Reality simply unfolds as usual.

And everything is in it for the shifting rollercoasterride.

Time resides in the concept of ongoingness—in the contradiction that what lies after is situated before the present. The past comes before the present, and the future comes after the present.

The concept of the void is one of boundless extension, whereas the concept of spacetime is that it curves back toward the subject.

The visible objects in reality curve spacetime and relate to the curvature.

If the concept of "life" can be characterized as the ability to express and sense one's own changes of state, then it follows naturally that changes in position can be perceived as spatial movements when such a change is experienced.

The change in position becomes an image of a space in which the subject moves. What occurs in the moment creates a sense of existing in a physical world.

The solution to the so-called "hard problem"—how dead matter can give rise to consciousness—lies in recognizing that it neither needs nor can be explained if it is already the fundamental basis grounded in the capacity for perceiving absolute existence. Absolute Existence can neither be explained nor does it require explanation. It is the a priori axiom itself

Why it's impossible to find references

The Absolute Existence philosophy is based on an assumption about the very possibility of making an assumption – the unchanging "being" that makes perception and thought possible. This makes it unique on several levels:

• It is pre-phenomenal: It places the starting point before all experiences, consciousness, or the universe.
• It is logically fundamental: It is not about God as a creator of the world, not about consciousness creating phenomena, and not about the universe as objectively existing. The starting point is the prerequisite for all of these possibilities.
• It is analytically pure: It cannot be expressed as a phenomenon or an experience, because that would shift the focus from the prerequisite to the manifestation.

Since most philosophical systems start either with the personal subject, the world, or God as a property, there simply is no established term or source pointing to exactly this assumption. The internet, which reflects existing writings, discussions, and popular philosophy, is therefore empty of references.

Contemporary Philosophy Departments and the Question of Existence

The fact that academic philosophy departments have largely "let go" of the subject as an absolute existence or fundamental primal force stems from a profound historical, methodological, and institutional rift.

Philosophy departments—particularly within the Western analytic tradition that dominates universities in the Nordic countries, Great Britain, and the United States—operate today under entirely different premises. There are four main reasons why they have abandoned the subject as an absolute foundation:

1. The Requirement of Scientificity and the "Tyranny of Objectivity" Over the past 150 years, academic philosophy has sought to be regarded as a "rigorous science." To achieve scientific status, philosophy was compelled to align itself with the natural sciences' demands for verifiability, measurability, and objectivity. Since the intrinsic nature of the pure subject (the capacity for perception) cannot be weighed, measured, or placed in a test tube, it was dismissed as something "vague" or unscientific. Faculties chose to study the fruits of consciousness—language, logic, argumentation, and neurobiology—rather than studying the Source itself.

2. The Dominance of Language and the Philosophy of Language: During the 20th century, what is known as "the linguistic turn" took place within philosophy. Thinkers began to argue that we cannot access any "absolute reality" outside of language. Philosophy was reduced to analyzing how we use words. Language automatically transforms the subject into an object. When academic disciplines began to treat the question of consciousness as a purely linguistic or logical puzzle, they turned the subject into a linguistic concept (an object) and thereby overlooked its absolute existence.

3. Reductionism and Materialism as Dogma: Within academic philosophy of mind, the overwhelmingly dominant stance is physicalism or materialism. There is a blind adherence to the dogma that matter creates consciousness. Researchers feverishly seek to understand how electrical impulses in the brain can "produce" an experience (a quest that has given rise to the famous "Hard Problem of Consciousness").

Turning the tables—that is, realizing (as in Absolute Existence Philosophy) that Absolute Existence and its capacity for perception are primary, and that matter consists merely of changes of state within this—is a perspective that threatens the entire academic worldview. It is rarely admitted, as it does not fit the reductionist model.

4. The split between analytic and continental philosophy: Universities became divided. Analytic philosophy took charge of logic and the philosophy of science, casting out the subject. Continental philosophy (through phenomenology, among other approaches) did attempt to study subjective experience, yet it often became bogged down in describing how specific phenomena are experienced, rather than acknowledging the subject as an absolute, ontological existence.

How Absolute Existence Philosophy (AEP) responds to this: It is precisely this academic failure that Absolute Existence Philosophy (AEP) addresses. Here, the page demonstrates how even radical thinkers who sought to encompass the whole often fall into this trap. The chapter "Ontos Origo," for instance, offers a critical examination of the Swedish thinker Stefan Hlatky. The text shows that while Hlatky achieved a "heroic breakthrough" by replacing the void of materialism with an unchanging, enduring, and subjective being, AEP argues that he—much like academia—ultimately fell into the trap of projecting properties of the Phenomenon (parts, movements, relations) directly onto the Absolute.

Academic faculties are groping in the void because they attempt to understand the light by studying only the shadows on the wall. They have forgotten that the subject is not an object of research; it is the very precondition for research -as a phenomenon - to take place at all.

Placement in Relation to Existing Philosophical Currents

Even though there are no direct equivalents, the Absolute Existence philosophys position can be analytically compared to known currents:

• Phenomenology (Husserl, etc.): Phenomenology investigates experiences and their structure. Your philosophy can be said to use the phenomenon as an entry point, but differs by not identifying the phenomenon with the starting point – the absolute capacity to perceive is the prerequisite, not the phenomenon.

Idealism (Berkeley, Kant, etc.): Idealism often says that the world depends on consciousness. The similarity is that both place something 'behind' the perceived. The difference is that the "The Absolute Existence philosophy" does not place consciousness itself as a creative instance. AEP places the perceptual faculty as universal and in two states, both as sender and receiver of reality.

• Theological absolute concepts (God, Brahman): Theological systems point to something independent, often with attributes, will, or purpose. The Absolute Existence philosophy abstracts away all attributes, will, or teleology: Absolute Existence is the prerequisite without properties, pure potential for experience.

From a historical perspective, GOD has often been understood as a creating instance that brings the universe into being outside of itself. In this view, GOD becomes relative to creation: either positioned at a distance from it, or conceived as an invisibly immanent part of what is created. In both cases, a relation arises in which GOD and the universe are separated in some manner, presupposing a "between" – logical or ontological – between creator and creation.

At the same time, already within the history of philosophy, there are conceptual formations that point in a different direction. In Plotinus, "the One" does not appear as a creator alongside the world, but as an unchanging ground from which the world necessarily emerges. Manifestation does not occur through a decision in time, but as a consequence of the ground's own fullness. In a similar way, Spinoza describes God as substance – Deus sive Natura – where nature is not created by God, but is God's expression. What is, follows with necessity from the essence of substance. In these lines of thought, there is no external act of creation; the world is a phenomenon that follows from the absolute.

A similar structure is articulated in Advaita Vedānta. Brahman is described as Absolute Existence, unchanging and fundamental, where the world does not arise as something external, but appears as a phenomenal expression. Perception and manifestation are not two separate realities here, but two aspects of the same ground. The apophatic tradition within Christian theology moves in the same direction by avoiding any objectification of God and instead emphasizing God as the condition for anything whatsoever to appear.

What these historical perspectives have in common is that they point toward an Absolute Existence that does not stand in relation to the world in the same way a cause stands in relation to its effect, but where the world appears as a necessary phenomenon given this ground.

Modern natural science does not use these concepts, yet it describes the universe in a way that is structurally compatible with such an assumption. In modern physics, the concept of fields has become fundamental. Particles are no longer understood as independent things, but as excitations of fields. Fields are not objects in space, but conditions for the phenomena that can be observed at all. Yet what generates the fields is rarely – if ever – addressed. That all fields must have something that carries or gives rise to them is not formulated as a question within the theory, but is left outside its linguistic scope.

Within cosmology as well, the universe is described as the result of instabilities, symmetry breaking, and momentum of tension. Phenomena arise because certain fundamental conditions are realized. There is a clear language of tension, dynamics, and necessary realization, but the poles of this field of tension are not presented as anything more than mathematical or physical quantities. What in the Absolute Existence Philosophys assumption is described as the field of tension between the capacity for perception and its realization appears here as a field without explicitly stated ontological poles.

When the question of consciousness is raised, this limitation becomes particularly evident. There are no established natural-scientific theories that describe non-local consciousness, but there are hypotheses and philosophical interpretations – often in connection with the non-locality of quantum mechanics – that question whether consciousness can be understood as strictly localized in space and time. At the same time, several thinkers point to the principled problem of attempting to explain perception using the same tools that are used to describe what is perceived. To search for the condition of experience with what already presupposes experience introduces a circularity that cannot be resolved within the method's own framework.

In this light, one can see how the historical concepts of Absolute Existence and modern natural science's description of the universe as a field of tension and realization approach each other structurally, without using the same language. Philosophy names the condition and makes it its point of departure; natural science describes the dynamics of the phenomenon, but remains silent about what ultimately carries and generates the field. The difference does not lie in the description of the phenomena, but in where the point of departure is placed.

Infinitely loaded

When you try to make mathematical calculations of reality that can lead to a story about how reality works as a phenomenon, you pretty soon end up in infinities. This applies in both directions, both in large and small ways. A positive exposure gives a large infinity and a negative exposure gives a small infinity that is no difference at all. This is so 'shady' that in order to be able to make any calculations of anything at all, science has been forced to create calculable quantities of this 'shady fact'.

Mathematics is forced to a renormalization, i.e. to call the smallest measurable that measuring instruments can measure "a Planck meter", or as an energy quantum which sounds like something but is really just a mathematical formality of Ideas for calculations. Otherwise, all mathematics would end up in infinities and thus completely collapse together with the mathematician.Mathematics has also led to the view of space being merged with time into a concept called “spacetime” and where calculations also show that the particles you count on also curve space. When they realize the "danger of "bozing in" the room", they then become so “dizzy” that they see existence in split vision. Partly mathematically and partly as experienced reality in the form of the weight we feel the experience of. This is the clearest sign that we can never objectify reality but must always include the calculator in the equation and that is not allowed by natural science. So Ai is not what does not find a place in the calculation. But the philosopher does this in philosophizing to the highest degree. By trying to assume in philosophical reflection a potential (the potency of the faculty of perception) versus actuality (its realization), philosophy can derive a reasoning about why the world necessarily appears as it does in the form of the image of the universe. Then the experience of reality may be sufficient to understand the phenomenal necessity of reality.

How Absolute Existence Can Still Be Referenced

Since phenomena, consciousness, and the universe cannot make the assumption themselves, the strategy is:

• Use phenomena as an entry point: Show that there are experiences, differences, tensions between potential and manifestation.
• Point backward analytically: From each phenomenon, one can ask: "What must exist for this phenomenon to be possible at all?" The answer is Absolute Existence.
• Keep it absolutely and independently: It is never identified with any phenomenon, object, or objectified subject (unless you switch places with it as a pure thought experiment without it necessarily leading to any form of solipsism). It can never be reduced to anything experienced, but all experiences presuppose it

In short: the internet lacks references because no one else has defined a starting point that is entirely pre-phenomenal and necessary for anything to be experienced or assumed. The Absolute Existence philosophy can therefore be said to be analytically unique, but it can still be "placed" comparatively with phenomenology, idealism, and theological absolute concepts to show the difference and the analytical value in your logical structure.

A Review of the Assumption in the Absolute Existence Philosophy

The assumption in the Absolute Existence Philosophy takes as its starting point an unchanging Being, understood as an Absolute Existence without parts. This Being is not assumed to be an entity among others, but the ultimate condition for anything to appear at all.

In this assumption, the faculty of Perception is not a function added to Being, but is understood as its essential nature. Perception is not secondary, but the way in which Existence can be meaningful as Existence at all.

Since Being is assumed to be undivided, there are no internal parts that can relate to each other, and since nothing external is assumed, there is also no external relation. This raises a fundamental question: how can relation, difference, or phenomena be conceived at all if everything is one and unchanging?

The assumption in the Absolute Existence Philosophy approaches this question by distinguishing between things and states. Relation is not understood as something arising between separate entities, but as something that can only be conceived between states.

It is noted that the only thing that can actually be perceived is difference, and that difference always appears sequentially. Difference therefore cannot be understood without some form of tension, and tension cannot be understood without at least two distinct states.

These two states are formulated as:

• Ability (potential)
• Realization (actuality)

Ability here is not understood as a latent property of something, but as the state in which realization has not yet occurred. Realization is not understood as an end, but as the actual appearance of difference.

Tension in this context is not understood as a force in a physical sense, but as the logical and phenomenal difference between potential and actual. It is this tension that makes it possible to speak of direction without introducing change in the nature of Being.

The assumption thus implies that relation in its most fundamental form is not a relation between subjects, objects, or parts, but a tension between the faculty of Perception and its realization. It is within this tension field that sequential differences can emerge and become objects of perception.

All subsequent relational differences — such as before and after, inward and outward, tension and relaxation, life and death — are understood in this perspective not as original, but as phenomenal expressions of this more fundamental relation.

The assumption in the Absolute Existence Philosophy is therefore not about describing the content of the universe, but about formulating the necessary condition for any assumption about relation to come into being at all.

It is a reasoning that neither presupposes parts, external causes, nor random emergence, but tests whether difference and phenomena can be understood as possible without abandoning the idea of an unchanging Being.

The Assumption of Existence and the Experience of Reality.

There is no reality without the consciousness of reality. If we consider reality without consciousness, we end up in contradictory thinking because we then take ourselves out of the process as experiencing thinkers who consider whether matter is the realization of consciousness as the universe or not. That is why we can not separate reality from the consciousness of it. We experience things as real, believing that they are unchangingly permanent until they fall apart and it turns out that this is not the case.

From things to reality ​Latin rēs: The root word means "thing", "thing", "object" or "matter". ​Late Latin reālis: During the Middle Ages, the adjective reālis was formed from rēs. It was used to describe something that belongs to the thing itself or that actually exists in the physical world. ​French réel: The word found its way into French and then spread to other languages. Every time we talk about "Reality",we really mean that what we relate to is the actual state of the "things" as we experience them as conscious of them. Matter is not then the "opposite" of consciousness, but rather how consciousness appears in a certain form.

we actually mean what we relate us to the actual 'things' states as we experience them as consciousness of them.

Matter is not the "opposite" of consciousness, but rather what consciousness looks like in a certain form.

We often talk about being "in" the universe, but perhaps it is more correct to say that the universe is something that happens "in" consciousness. Without the experiencing thinker, there is no one who can attest that "things" have a status as "things" at all.

1. By putting words to experiences, we create an interobjectivity. Individual: I see a color and feel a texture. Collective: We agree to call it "a chair." Result: We can now collaborate on the object "chair" without ever knowing if we are actually seeing the exact same shade of brown.

Purposefulness. It is primarily about relating to reality purposefully. If we agree that a red traffic light means "stop", then this linguistic and symbolic agreement creates a highly tangible physical certainty. The reality in this moment is not the color itself, but the common rule we navigate by.

3. When language creates reality: There are parts of our reality that only exist through linguistic agreements. These are often called institutional facts:

Money: A piece of paper or digital numbers only have value as long as we agree on it.

Laws: Borders between countries are rarely visible from space, but they are real because we have spoken them out.

The contradiction in the "unchanged permanent" leads back to an earlier point: We treat these linguistic agreements as if they were unchangeably permanent constants of nature.

But because they rest on language and consciousness, they are highly changeable. You could say that "reality" is the conversation we have with each other in order not to get lost in the sensory impressions.

The assumption.

1. The Absolute Existence (Non-Binary) This is the assumption of the original unity. It is not zero, but the first reality. It is non-binary because it has no opposite; it encompasses everything. It is the substance that can never arise from nothing, since existence is its fundamental nature.

2. The Essence (Binary: Potentiality vs. Realization) Here the field of tension arises. The Essence is the inherent nature and dynamics of 01 that enables movement as a change of state. By being binary, it creates the polarity between: Potentiality: All that can be experienced (the as yet unformed). Realization: The drive to actually experience this potential. It is this binary engine that drives the process forward.

3. Phenomenon (The Emergence) Phenomenon is the third stage – the actual expression or “image” that arises from the tension of 02. This is where reality emerges and realizes the state of consciousness. In the of Circular Logic model of Reality, it becomes clear that: it is not a question of creation out of nothing: Since we start with 01 (Existence), the universe is not about “coming into being” from nothing, but about a phenomenally altered state of being. Consciousness as an end point and beginning: Consciousness is not a random by-product, but is the specific point where 03 (Phenomenon) feeds back to 01 (Existence) so that it can experience itself. What we call “reality” is thus the point where the binary essence (02) manages to translate the non-binary existence (01) into a phenomenal emergence (03). This explains why we end up in contradictions when we remove consciousness from the equation: we then try to keep 03 (the Phenomenon) but erase the process that makes 03 possible. Without the receiving experiencer in relation to the experienced reception, the whole structure collapses back to the silent potential of 01.

If consciousness is the point where Absolute Existence is actually realized, then there is no "reality" outside of this process. Trying to imagine a reality without consciousness is like trying to imagine a mirror image without light or an observer - a logical impossibility because the very definition of "reality" requires this act of realization. This means that we, as conscious beings, are the "place" where the universe (as phenomenon) and the Absolute (as existence) meet to become real.

The Difference Between Map and Terrain

Usually, our mind functions as a projector that divides existence into "in here" and "out there". We believe that we are a small observer looking out through two windows in a skull. The insight: When reality "comes back", you realize that the sight of a tree, the sound of the wind and the feeling of your own body appear in the same "space". The absolute existence of Being: There is not a person who hears a sound; there is only hearing.

The limitation of language: Experience is beyond words. Language is built on dualism. To build a sentence, we need a subject and a predicate (Someone who does Something). "I see reality." Just by uttering that sentence, we have created a gap that, according to the experience, is not there. The words become like fingers pointing at the moon; if you stare at your finger for too long you miss what is actually there. Reality as it is. The fascinating thing about this is that it is not about achieving a new, magical state, but rather about seeing through an illusion. It is not that reality becomes one; it has never been divided. It is only our conceptual thinking that has "cut" the whole into pieces to make it understandable. What is deceiving is the idea that what we call "I" is really just reality looking at itself from a specific angle.

The Black Hole of Reality:

When modern science, in its calculations, informs the public that reality is something that has emerged from vacuum fluctuations that formed the tiniest LEGO pieces they are looking for, this scientific mathematical tale is built on a logical explosion that allows what they are searching for but have not yet found to have been packed into a dimensionless point without extension, which in imagination is seen from an imaginary space that doesn’t exist, something they have to get used to when they explain why reality is the way it is according to the laws of nature written by no one who didn’t exist when everything began.

For a physicist, a singularity is a sign that the equations have "broken down," but in popular science it is often presented as an absolute truth, even though it is an ontological black hole that screams that inside here our maps no longer work. This error message is told to the public, including all parents who are supposed to retell this to their children, so one gets the anxiety when they can figure out that this logical explosion will lead to everyone being gone because they are just a 'being' that is supposed to exist for approximately hundred years.

And when they suck on that candy, they feel that it is a candy that sucks, and then it doesn't matter if they are promised a lot of money to shoot a foreign conscious being, because the thought about the reality that it is a fluctuation makes all values fluctuate as well in a cosmic nihilism that only gives unbearable anxiety that must be fought at any cost, and this is something that a smart person can make money from, because in such a worldview the money is called "GOD" in a value-neutral creation story that assigns some value to something, and then it becomes up to each individual to form their own values, since all stories about reality are based on a fluctuation of the vacuum, which is a phenomenal way to describe how things work but ignores the essential question when it comes to answering why we exist, or what our value is.

Whoever still wants to try to establish a logical starting point for thinking that assumes existence and experience are the core of the universe is considered a madman by those who struggle not to go mad themselves due to technocratic nihilism, which creates a vacuum – not only in physics, but also within the human interior. Just the thought that everything is a byproduct of random tremors in an empty field is a logical explosion of the highest order. We have replaced notions that gave meaning with models that provide calculations but leave an existential void behind. Is it really necessary?

It has created a physical place where logic dies, and even the human reason that cries out for a logical starting point. But if such a starting point is eventually presented in the form of a logical assumption, no one wants to hear that for their own suffering it appears to be the most valuable thing we have. Yet when we can no longer talk to each other because the reality that 'science's “Scientology-Religion" gives us clashes with our experience of being, so we fall into the black hole science claims we came out of. But the scientific map is not the terrain where the triangular points we are looking for can be found. Could it be that we are afraid of a logical solution because it would require us to take responsibility for our own existence, instead of just being victims of chance? Whoever still wants to try setting up a logical starting point for thinking that assumes that existence and experience are the core of the universe is considered a madman by those who struggle not to go insane themselves due to technocratic nihilism that creates a vacuum – not only in physics, but also in the human interior. Just the thought that everything is byproducts of random tremors in an empty field is a logical explosion that is something else. We have replaced notions that gave meaning with models that provide calculations but leave an existential void behind, but is it really necessary?

It has created a physical place where logic dies and even the human reason that cries out for a logical starting point. But if such a thing is possibly presented in the form of a logical assumption, no one wants to hear that for their own suffering it seems to be the most valuable thing we have. But when we can no longer talk to each other because the reality that "the science of scientology-religion" gives us collides with our experience of “Being,” we fall into the black hole that science claims we emerged from. But the scientific map is not the terrain where the triangle points we are looking for can be found. Could it be that we are afraid of a logical solution because it would require us to take responsibility for our own existence, instead of just being victims of chance?

Why a "thermometer" never can function as an "immersion heater".

When science speaks of one or more quantum fields existing at a fundamental level, this constitutes a mathematical description - a model built upon measurements, relationships, and quantities. It belongs to the realm of how things manifest to us: the Phenomenon.

To claim that the quantum field creates matter or consciousness is akin to saying that the temperature scale on a thermometer creates heat. One takes a retrospective abstraction and posits it as the source of reality, which is a circular argument.

For a quantum field to function, intrinsic structures are required: fluctuations, potentials, mathematical constants, time and space (or spacetime). This means that the field is composed of parts, boundaries, and conditions.

If the primordial foundation of reality depends on intrinsic mathematical rules or external frameworks, then it is not absolute; it is contingent and relative.

True existence must be entirely independent and undivided (a primordial subject).

Then, the experience of reality can shift from the sense of being a subject within an absolutely objective reality to actually being a phenomenal, objectively subjective part that momentarily emerges from the primordial subject of absolute existence.

The Absolute Philosophy of Existence and the modern scientific description of reality.

In modern quantum physics (e.g., the Copenhagen interpretation of the Schrödinger equation), the measurement problem and the observer's role are completely central to how the wave function collapses. Physics can no longer ignore the observer's function, which points to a subjective basis even though the subject has long been on the 'bench' waiting for a new starting point.

Without the modulation of the faculty of perception in the phenomenon, there was no possibility of experience and without an Absolute Existence as the Absolute Primordial Subject, there was no ability to perceive as its inherent nature.

This assumed premise is a postulate that is used as a crystallization point for thought as the unchanged existing Being as the ontological basis of reasoning.

For those who are possibly interested in how modern science calculates today, we can see similarities to the Absolute Philosophy of Existence and then we can test our assumption by making an analogy.

All information is experienced when it is received by an experiencer.

It is received in sequentially transmitted binary information that remains through resonance in the form of binary memories of experienced received sequential images.

Science currently says that the transmitted sequential information occurs in small frequent jumps (hG tp= ≈ 5.39 × 10-44 s c5) (about 10^{-43} seconds) which are so frequently updated that they are not experienced as single images (qubits) one at a time, but what is received is experienced as a fluid continuum of shapes in motion and these shapes shape what is experienced as space through a curvature of space that the sequential memory information is forced to relate to and which then collects the information in clusters that are experienced in the form of inertia in resistance and weight. These resistance clusters reflect information about positions and states of change, and this change in position is experienced as a fluid, continuous change of distance perceived as movement. Since this happens so quickly, the experience occurs as a fluid phenomenal experience of forms changing location against a background of unlimited space, which is experienced by the experiencer as the space for the experience. The information stored as memories can then be transferred through communication containing instructions to other information clusters, which can then implement these instructions to update the content of the clustered information that the cluster contains. A high density of differences creates an experience of a solid, complex world.
A lowering of the frequency (as in deep sleep or certain meditative states) brings the experiencer closer to the edge of the indescribable.
The phenomenal medial manifestation is then assumed to occur out of pure necessity for the faculyt of perception to perceive anything at all.
And then the medium must probably lie between the potential and the realization of consciousness.

And if the experience of reality only occurs in the form of differences from various perspectives of reality, it means that reality and consciousness are synonymous even though it is there that all phenomenal difference takes place.

It means that you have to accept that 'reality' is not a place you are in, but a continuous series of differences that the Absolute casts like shadow plays in its own nature, and unfortunately this in itself is a threat to your own self-image, where identity lies in the 'I' and not in the Absolute's faculty of perception.

You can think this way without your thinking collapsing!

Information Collapse and Transformation

The only way to experience reality is by seeing it from different angles. Today we live in an "epistemic crisis" where the source of "truth" has been fragmented. When algorithms prioritize engagement, everyone stares at their screens and is all agitated and obsessed that it is more valuable to steal information to make money than to use it as social communication in the loss-making business of consensus, this can ultimately lead to the potential collapse of the system. With AI, we are heading very quickly towards that collapse as AI reinforces our own prejudices until reality becomes unrecognizable. The nature of collapse is that tensions build imperceptibly in a system over time until it reaches a breaking point when everything suddenly falls apart. But the positive can be that something new can develop from the rubble. Transformation is the course of nature. If we can agree on the nature of reality as it happens, we reduce friction. The more we understand that we share the same source of information, the faster the perception of the indivisible is divided. If reality is experienced as one of many there can be a fight about which reality should apply. It is not until reality is experienced by many as one that there can be a little peace and quiet.We fight because we see different things. When we realize that we see the same thing from different angles, peace can come. If we shift the focus from what is happening to who is experiencing it, we can reach an insight If we wait for external events to explain themselves, then it will take a lifetime. But it is probably not until the one who sends the information also receives it back that reality takes shape in from the clear inertia of objects in the inner space of reflection.

The Absolute and Its Sublime Quality

The absolute, the extraordinary, the unique, that which has no counterpart – the essence of existence's sublime quality. In aesthetics, philosophy, and literature, this is the concept that describes something so grand, boundless, and overwhelming that it has no equivalent and cannot be comprehended with reason or language, the unspeakable. It stands in absolute contrast to beauty because it contains a dimension of the incomprehensible and infinite.

Western science tried to find the Absolute (the unchanging and fundamental) in the outside world, by dividing matter into smaller and smaller pieces. But nature refused to cooperate in that way.

When the Greek philosopher Democritus coined the word atomos (which means "indivisible"), he was looking for the ultimate building block. The idea was material: if we just divide a stone enough times, we must eventually encounter a hard, unchanging small particle that cannot be divided any further.

When science in the 20th century finally got the tools to look inside the atom, they didn't find those hard, indivisible balls. They found protons, neutrons, and electrons—which in turn turned out to be made up of quarks.

But the most revolutionary thing was that the deeper they dug, the more the idea of a "particle" (a separate form with boundaries) disappeared. At the quantum level, they discovered that:

Particles behave like waves (probability waves) until they are measured. ​They have no definite place or shape in themselves. ​Matter turned out to be essentially condensed energy or mathematical relationships, not solid "things."

Science thus tried to construct an absolute reality by putting together puzzles with material parts. But a part can never be absolute. As soon as something has a shape, an extent, or a definition, it belongs to the changing, phenomenal world.

What they call "particles" are just the smallest measurable oscillations (waves) in something that acts as an underlying field. ​Matter is not "that which is." Matter is just the way in which the underlying Being shows itself to our limited measuring instruments and senses.

Western science tried to find the unchanging by looking outward into the changing universe, only to discover that the "solid" beneath our feet dissolved into nothingness.

(The unchanging Being (Ontos Origo or Brahman) can never be found as an object in the world, since it is the very basis for the world to appear at all.)

The word absolutus is the Latin perfect participle of the verb absolvere, which means "to release from", "to free" or "to absolve" (from ab = "away" + solvere = "to dissolve"). ​First written occurrence: It appears in Latin texts in the centuries before Christ (including writers such as Cicero and Julius Caesar). ​Meaning at the time: At this time it did not mean "the ultimate cosmic being". It was used legally and practically in the sense of "acquitted", "detached" or simply "complete".

It took until the latter half of the 14th century for the word to find its way into the English language (via French). ​The first written evidence in English texts dates to around 1350–1380. ​Here it was used primarily in theological or grammatical contexts to describe something that was "free from limitations" or "perfect in its purity" (for example, "absolute forgiveness").

(The unchanging Being (Ontos Origo or Brahman) can never be found as an object in the world, since it is the very basis for the world to appear at all.)

The word absolutus is the Latin perfect participle of the verb absolvere, which means "to release from", "to free" or "to absolve" (from ab = "away" + solvere = "to dissolve"). ​First written occurrence: It appears in Latin texts in the centuries before Christ (including writers such as Cicero and Julius Caesar). ​Meaning at the time: At this time it did not mean "the ultimate cosmic being". It was used legally and practically in the sense of "acquitted", "detached" or simply "complete".

It took until the latter half of the 14th century for the word to find its way into the English language (via French). ​The first written evidence in English texts dates to around 1350–1380. ​Here it was used primarily in theological or grammatical contexts to describe something that was "free from limitations" or "perfect in its purity" (for example, "absolute forgiveness").

The meaning – The Absolute as a noun (a cosmic, unchanging primordial being) – is actually a fairly modern invention in Western writing. It was the German idealists of the early 19th century, most notably Friedrich Schelling and G.W.F. Hegel, who took the word and made it a central metaphysical term (das Absolute). In English writing, the noun form "The Absolute" (as a translation of the German's philosophy) first appeared around 1809. As a separate word it has existed in writing for over 2000 years (then with the meaning "liberated/acquitted"). But as the name for the innermost, unchanging Being, it was born in Western writing as late as the early 19th century in an attempt to translate the very ancient insights that Shankara described with the word Brahman a thousand years earlier.

Advaita Vedanta's "neti neti: makes only a negative statement of what the Absolute is not.

Neti neti" ("not this, not this") to such an ingenious and merciless tool. It is the ultimate philosophical vacuum cleaner: it sucks away every concept, every form, and every notion we try to project onto the Absolute. ​By making only negative statements, "neti neti" exposes a fundamental truth about language and intellect: The Absolute can never be described positively, because every positive word is a limitation. ​There are three important reasons why Advaita Vedanta (via texts like the Upanishads and Shankara's commentaries) insists on this purely negative method (via negative or apophatic theology):

To define is to limit ​The word "define" comes from the Latin definire, which means to set a limit around something. If I say "Brahman is love," "Brahman is light," or (as we talked about earlier) "Brahman is an organism," I have at the same time excluded the opposites (hatred, darkness, the inorganic).

But the Absolute has no limits and no opposites. Therefore it cannot be contained in a positive definition. The only thing the intellect can do without lying is to purge away what the Absolute is not: ​Not material. ​Not limited in time and space. ​Not an object that can be understood by a subject.

The seeker is what remains ​The great thing about neti neti is that it is not a purely academic exercise, but an investigation of one’s own consciousness. When you strip away everything that you can observe:

1. ​I am not my body (because I can observe it). Neti.

2. ​I am not my thoughts or feelings (because they come and go, and I can observe them). Neti.

3. ​I am not my intellect or my philosophical concepts. Neti.

​Finally, you have denied everything that can be pointed to. What happens then? The process collapses because there is nothing left to deny. What then remains is not a void or a “nothing” – what remains is that which denies. The pure, unchanging subject. The Witness. Brahman. ​The Absolute as the remaining Being:

Neti neti does not say that the Absolute is a zero value. The method works like a sculptor carving a block of marble. The sculptor does not add anything; he simply carves away everything that is not the sculpture. The Absolute is what remains when all phenomenal illusions and mental concepts have been carved away.

Where Advaita Vedanta (Shankara) explains the phenomenon by calling the world an "illusion" (Maya) or an apparent projection (Vivarta), the Absolute Existential Philosophy (AEP/AEF) solves the problem through a strict, ontological chain of consequences. ​AEF does not dismiss the phenomenal universe as an error, but sees it as a necessary and law-bound mechanical effect of the Absolute Being. ​To solve the "problem of the phenomenon" – that is, how the changeable can arise from the unchangeable without the unchangeable being destroyed – AEF divides reality into a strict hierarchical chain of four steps. ​The ontological chain of consequences ​The entire AEF solution rests on the fact that each step in this chain presupposes the previous one, but the previous one is never affected or changed by the subsequent one.

Level Concept What it means in AEF 1 Being (Ontos Origo)The absolutely unchanging, dimensionless existence. The foundation that just is.

2 Essence (Perception)The inherent nature of being. Not an act or a will, but a pure potential to perceive/feel. This is realized into consciousness through the constant interaction of the perception in binary oscillation.

How does this solve the paradox?

Through this framework, AEF solves the problem via three revolutionary principles:

The phenomenon is an effect, not an agent ​Usually we think of material phenomena as interacting with each other (that one billiard ball collides with another). AEF believes that this is a logical confusion. Phenomena have no perspectives of their own and no agents of their own. ​A relationship in experience never occurs between two phenomena. The relationship always occurs between the original perceptual ability (Being/Essence) and its own realization (Phenomenon). In other words, the universe is the Absolute that meets itself in the form of a reflection.

The Momentary Binary Exposure (Oscillation) ​How does the changing phenomenon move if the foundation is still? AEF uses an almost digital explanatory model. What we experience as a fluid, ongoing and constantly changing reality is in fact a sequential succession of quantized, binary state changes – an oscillation. ​It works exactly like a movie in a cinema: ​The screen itself and the projector light (Being) do not change. ​The images that are shown (Phenomenon) are completely static, isolated frames that are exposed one at a time. ​But when the exposure occurs extremely quickly, the experience of time, movement and change arises in the conscious mind. ​The change thus belongs exclusively to the phenomenal level of exposure, while the Absolute Being (Ontos Origo) remains untouched at its base.

Destined Necessity over Free Will ​Shankara's Maya sometimes appears as a cosmic mystery or a "mistake" in perception from which we must wake up.

Phenomenon (Universe)The actual result that manifests itself: the images, the movement, the matter and the differences.

AEF removes the mysticism and explains that the emergence of the phenomenon occurs by pure destined necessity. ​If the Absolute exists, and its innermost being (essence) is the ability to feel, then this potential must be realized. The universe arises not because the Absolute "wants" to create something, but because the ability to feel purely mechanically expresses the phenomenon in order to realize its own nature at all.

​Summary: AEF solves the problem by placing the phenomenon at the right level. The phenomenon is not an independent substance, and it is not a "mistake". It is the Absolute Existence's own, effective angles of reality. It is a representation that makes the unchanging Being perceptible to itself through differences and contrasts.

Since Hlatky based his model on "conscious senses" and an "organic unity," he in fact based it on phenomenal notions. A mind that experiences itself as a distinct part, in relation to other senses in an organism, has already stepped out into the world of dualism and change. ​That is precisely why the later Absolute Existence Philosophy (AEP) felt compelled to make the paternal break from Hlatky's terminology: ​Hlatky stayed in the living, organic experience (the senses). ​AEP stepped completely outside the phenomenal realm, stripped away the senses, and purified everything to an uncompromising, non-human primordial ground: Ontos Origo.

On the Criticism of the Absolute Philosophy of Existence's Assumption of the Absolute Original-Subject

According to the Nihilist Nietzsche's own view that "everything is interpretation," his dismissal of the The Proto-subject becomes just another interpretation from the same living flow of perception.

Original-Subject ("Ur-Subject" from the German "Ursubjekt") is a philosophical concept that refers to the original, fundamental, or very first consciousness.

It is the ultimate source of thought, experience, and perception, which itself cannot be reduced to anything else.

Philosophical Meaning Epistemology: It functions as the ultimate foundation for all judgments and all logical thinking—the entity that experiences before being divided into subject and object and which, once human language is established, then calls itself "I."

The idea of the self gives us an illusion of observing reality from a distance, as the experience of reality continuously occurs as an effect within the resonance of the lag's wake. The idea of the self arises as we learn language, given that the name we hear spoken is something directed at ourselves, perceiving the name as the one belonging to that specific name. As language development progresses, we eventually refer to ourselves as "I", a concept that replaces our name when we speak of our subjectively bounded experiences. The Looking-Glass Self: Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley argued that our self-image is reflected in how others react to us. When parents and those around utter the child's name, the name becomes the first external anchor point for who the child is. The child discovers themselves "from the outside" through the gaze and address of others. The Linguistic Shift to "I": Moving from referring to oneself in the third person (e.g., "Lisa wants") to using the pronoun "I" is a massive cognitive development step. This typically occurs around two to three years of age. It signifies that the child no longer views themselves merely as an object in the world of others (a name), but as a subject with their own inner world of unique, bounded experiences. Jacques Lacan's "Mirror Stage": In psychoanalysis, Lacan speaks of how the child first identifies with their reflection or their name (which is an external representation), to then enter the role of a unique subject—an "I"—through language (the symbolic system). Language, therefore, is not merely a tool for communicating thoughts that already exist; language is the very tool that constructs the experience of an "I" and separates us from the outside world. Without language, we would likely live in a state of total fusion with our surroundings—a fluid now without distinct boundaries between "me" and "the other". Language grants us self-awareness, but the price we pay is precisely that illusion of separation and alienation. We become observers of reality rather than one with it.

Metaphysics: In certain systems (like German idealism or older metaphysics), the ur-subject is seen as a universal principle or an absolute consciousness (similar to Atman in Indian philosophy), which underlies all reality.

The existence that underlies all activity.

Critique: Philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche have criticized similar concepts, such as a 'primal -Subject,' as a purely metaphysical construct, similar to the belief in indivisible atoms but as absolute soly and single – an invented origin to explain change in the world.

In this critique, Nietzsche points to the fundamental 'primal-subject' as an 'object of thought' rather than being the experiencing subject trying to grasp itself, but Nietzsche didn't pursue this line of thinking that far. Still, you could say that he actually rejected the 'primal-subject' as an 'object of thought' in a logically sound way, since you can't make an entity or a unity out of what makes entities and unities possible.

Create your own values "God is dead" Friedrich Nietzsche is famous for his deep and bold criticism of Christian morality, Western culture, and traditional philosophy. He coined the famous concepts "God is dead," the übermensch, the will to power, and eternal recurrence. His ideas laid the groundwork for existentialism.

Key concepts God is dead: The expression means that belief in God no longer governs society, which creates a risk of emptiness or nihilism.

The Overman or "Superman":
A strong individual who creates their own values instead of blindly following others' rules.

The Will to Power:
A driving force in all living things to grow, create, and overcome obstacles.

Master and Slave Morality:
A division where the weak create a 'slave morality' (compassion, humility) to restrain the strong.

According to Friedrich Nietzsche, there is no ready-made or higher meaning to life. The universe has no built-in purpose. Instead, he believed that humans must create their own meaning and values rather than seeking answers from God, religion, or traditions.

Nihilism: When faith in God disappears, old truths fall away. This creates a risk of emptiness, so-called nihilism.
Self-Creation: You must become your own creator. You set your own goals and values.

World History
The Will to Power and Joy of Life
Will to Power:
The driving force in life is not just to survive, but to grow, express your strength, and develop. And if you gaze into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

(From Beyond Good and Evil)
On religion:
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” (From The Gay Science)

On truth and perspective:
“There are no truths, only interpretations.” (From Posthumous Notes)

On art:
“Without music, life would be a mistake.” (From Twilight of the Idols)

The questions one would like to have asked Friedrich Nietzsche are what is it that listens to the name Friedrich Nietzsche and what is it that interprets and experiences phenomenal reality.

The ultimate question to all nihilists then becomes:

What is it that underlies the very claim that the Original Subject is a fiction if the inherent nature of the Original Subject is the capacity to perceive, oscillating between dormancy and the experience of reality?

The absolute answer is that such criticism itself presupposes a conscious perspective. If the original-subject is the waking faculty of sensation that swings between slumber and experience, Nietzsche cannot dismiss it without using the same consciousness to interpret, measure, and name it.

Critic's paradox The tool of denial: To call the original-subject a 'fictional atom,' the critic must already be in an experience.

Ways of interpretation: According to Nietzsche's own words, everything is a way of interpreting; thus, his own critique of the original-subject is just yet another interpretation from the same stream of consciousness.

Why the question arises

The swing: The faculty of sensation shifts in consciousness between deep rest (slumber) and sharp presence (experience).

Who experiences:
The one who asks who or what listens to the name Nietzsche and then calls themselves 'I' is precisely this original-subject seeking its own origin.
The very idea of an 'invention' presupposes a subject that perceives reality.

If the original-subject is the condition for a language to be able to provide insight at all, then probably the subject itself cannot have any content that can be described and understood, and therefore must be self-evident and something no one needs to learn anything about.

In an epistemological and transcendental-philosophical tradition (inspired among others by Kant and early Wittgenstein).

If the original-subject is the ultimate limit or condition for all experience and linguistic expression, it cannot itself be made into an object for experience or description outside this system.

Philosophical implications (Repetition) The limit of language:
What makes description possible cannot itself be described, since a description presupposes a separation anda distinction between subject and object.

Silent understanding: The subject does not appear as a thing with properties, but is the silent horizon from which everything else becomes meaningful.

Non-representation: Since it precedes all conceptualization, it lacks empirical or cognitive 'content' in the sense that can be communicated.

Why it doesn't need to be learned

Transcendental necessity: It is a structural prerequisite rather than a collection of facts that can be accumulated.

Immediacy: It is already in function in every act of understanding, which means it cannot be the subject of an external learning process.

The Subject

The double meaning of "the subject"—as both "that which underlies" and "the one who experiences."

1. The Latin origin: "That which lies beneath" The word comes from the Latin subiectus, formed from sub- (under) and iacere (to throw). Its literal meaning was therefore "that which is thrown underneath" or "that which forms the basis of something."

2. How it became "subject" (What we are talking about) When ancient philosophers and logicians (who translated Greek concepts into Latin) sought to describe what a statement is about, they used the word subiectum.

• In logic, the subject is the base itself—the fundamental entity or topic—about which something is then said (predicated).

• If you say "The sun is hot," the Sun is the fundamental base (the subject) upon which the entire statement rests.

• From this, we derive the meaning of "subject" as a topic - that is, the subject matter or theme underlying a conversation, a book, or a school assignment.

3. How it became "the one who acts" (The thinking self) During the Enlightenment and the rise of modern philosophy (with thinkers such as René Descartes), interest turned toward the human experience.

• The world was divided into two parts: that which is observed (the object) and that which observes (the subject).

• Since our consciousness and our "Self" form the basis of all our thoughts, feelings, and actions, the human being came to be viewed as the central subject.

• This is the origin of the grammatical meaning: the subject is the agent (the one who acts or experiences) that sustains the entire sentence. Summary of the ambiguity is that both meanings converge in the idea of a "ground" or "basis":

• Subject matter: The fundamental basis upon which a conversation or text rests.

• The agent: The fundamental consciousness (or grammatical subject) that performs an action.

• "That which experiences" - cannot be shown by itself except in different kinds of mirror-like phenomena that curve back to the subject as images. The problem with all images is that they then become relative objects and not the original subject that makes all images possible. That is why most religions do not allow anyone to make representations of the subject.

"Ify" and ": as in the word "Personify"

1. -”ify” (Verb ending) • Meaning: To make, transform into, or fill anything with a certain quality (e.g., purify = to make pure, amplify = to make larger). • Latin origin: The ending comes from the Latin suffix -ificāre, a combination of adjectives ending in -ificus and the verb facere (meaning "to do" or "to make"). • Path to English: Via Old French -ifier. During the Middle Ages, English adopted many of these French verbs, and the pattern eventually became productive enough in English to be applied to words that were not Latin in origin (as in uglify).

2. -”ification” (Noun ending) • Meaning: The process or result of doing something (e.g., purification = the process of purifying, amplification = the act of amplifying). • Latin origin: This is the natural noun form of the -ify verbs. It derives from the Latin suffix -ificātiōnem (nominative: -ificātiō). It is based on the same root: facere (to do/make) combined with the ending -tiō, which indicates an action or state. • Path to English: This, too, arrived via French (-ification) and began appearing in English texts during the Middle English period (14th century onwards). Brief summary When you see -ify or -ification in an English word (such as clarify / clarification), you are seeing a linguistic legacy of the Latin verb facere- to do or make.

The “Perceptionability” or the “faculty of perception” as a swedish word (“Förnimmelseförmåga”) and Ai as an interpreter of the Word.

The word “Förnimmelseförmåga” is a swedish word that point to the word “ “ “Perceptionability or Perceptual-faculty” that Ai cannot interpret other than as "noise" because of its compound nature and because the word does not exist as a definable word in any dictionary in Swedish or in any other language either. "Perception" exists as a word and "faculty" exists as a word. In the Swedish language, it is possible to put two "abstract" words together and get a new "abstract" word that is also not definable. Despite this, the meaning of the word is the central thing in everything.

The reason why Ai doesn't "get" the word "“Perceptual-faculty" is because Ai divides text into smaller units (so-called tokens). When the Swedish language does what it does best – to merge two abstract concepts into a new one – Ai is forced to make a statistical guess. ​Perception (what is received) ​Faculty/Ability (the potential to do or be something. And because Ai can also only interpret the word as "capacity" as a "container" that can be filled (fulfilled), Ai also loses what an ability can realize) ​If someone joins these to the word "perceptionability", a word is created that does not have a ready, static definition in a database. For Ai, it becomes, in a way, "noise" or a blank spot on the map, since it cannot be measured against an established standard. Ai has to reconstruct the sentence by weighing the two parts against each other. ​And here lies the deep irony: the AI ​​does exactly what the classical science does with reality.

By using the unique elasticity of the Swedish language, AEF (thanks to Stefan Hlatky) managed to put a finger on what lies behind the language. AEF uses a word that points directly at the experiencer. That Ai puts it in quotation marks is like an involuntary bow to the fact that here the code ends, and here the living mystery begins. The "perceptionability or the ability to experience" is what is called "ontological subjectivity" or the pure potential for consciousness. The Absolute Existence is “the Being”. The Essence is the experience of the state shifts in the Being's flashes between on and off.

This is not a definition of the.perceptionability or the ability to experience. This is an identification of the living reception of experiences.

The AI ​​does not have the word as a ready-made "static unit" (its own token). Instead, it breaks it down into smaller pieces: e.g. for, sensation, for, ability. ​Statistical reconstruction: It looks at the relationship between these pieces. It knows that "sensation" often appears close to words like mind, perception, and subjectivity. It knows that "ability" is about capacity. ​ The AI ​​weighs these together and creates a mathematical representation (a vector) that lands astonishingly close to what we mean by the word.

Ability as a "container" versus "potential" ​AI interprets "ability" as a container to be filled. For an algorithm, an ability is a function: if (X) -> do (Y). Ability is measured in its output, in what it performs or holds. ​But in the word "sensation ability", (based on Stefan Hlatky's philosophy and used in the sentence of Ability to experience or simply, Experience), the ability is not an empty box or a function to be executed. It is a living potential, the very basis for there to be an "inside" and an "outside" at all. It is ontological subjectivity—the fact that it feels like something to be.

"Person".

The word person comes from the Latin word persona, which originally referred to a face mask or theatrical mask used by actors in Roman and Greek theaters. Shared origins (Latin and Etruscan) • The theatrical mask: The word persona likely derives from the Etruscan word phersu (mask) or from the Latin per- (through) and sonare (to sound)—meaning "the mask through which the voice sounds" to reach the audience in a large theater. • Semantic shift: The meaning evolved from the mask itself to the role played by the actor, and subsequently to a human individual in general. Etymological development in Swedish

• Loanword and ecclesiastical influence: The word appeared in Old Swedish and older Nordic languages ​​partly through Low German influence and partly directly from the Latin persona. When the Nordic region was Christianized (around the 11th–12th centuries), the word was adopted via the Church to describe religious and grammatical concepts.

• Usage: It has retained its core meaning as a human individual but also appears in legal and grammatical terms (such as fysisk/juridisk person [natural/legal person] or första person [first person]). Etymological development in English and theology

• French influence: English adopted the word person in the early 13th century from the Old French personne, which in turn came from the Latin persona.

• Introduction by the Church: Just as in the Nordic region, England was Christianized (beginning in the late 6th century) by missionaries who spoke Latin. During the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) period, the Latin word persona was adopted directly by the Church to explain complex religious concepts—above all, the doctrine of the Trinity (that God is three persons in one and the same essence). • Linguistic objectification: This theological development illustrates how human language objectifies the subject. By assigning it the name "GOD," the original subject is transformed into "three persons" acting in concert, much like an invisible group in the sky. • Specific derivatives: In English, the word also gave rise to parson (rector/pastor; originally from persona ecclesiae—the church’s representative or "face"). The plural forms persons and people

• The plural form people derives—via Anglo-French poeple—from the Latin populus (folk/people). It thus follows a completely different historical path than the purely etymological plural persons.

1. Legal entities (Companies and states) In law, a distinction is made between two types of persons:

• Natural person: A biological human being (you and me).

• Legal person: A company, a municipality, a state, or an association. A limited company is legally considered a "person" in its own right. This means the company can own real estate, appear in court, enter into contracts, and incur debt—entirely separate from the people who own or work for the company. Thus, the company possesses legal rights and obligations, just like a human being.

2. Philosophical and scientific borderline cases In philosophy, a "person" is often defined by characteristics such as self-awareness, rationality, and the ability to contemplate the future and the past. This makes the boundary fluid:

• Animals: Some philosophers and lawmakers argue that highly intelligent animals (such as chimpanzees, dolphins, or elephants) should possess certain basic "personhood rights" because they are self-aware.

• Artificial intelligence: As AI develops, there is debate regarding whether a future, conscious AI could or should be accorded personhood status.

3. The historical legacy (The theatrical mask) As your text indicated, the origin of the word (persona) relates not to biology, but to a role or function.

When the Church described God as "three persons," it did not mean three human beings of flesh and blood, but rather three distinct forms of manifestation or roles (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) of the same essence.

When we use words like "essence" (the core of an object) and divide it into three "persons" or "roles," we inevitably transform what is meant to be a living, dynamic, and personal relationship into rigid, theoretical concepts. Language compels us to view it from the outside—as an object we can categorize rather than a presence we experience. This is a well-known issue in theology and the philosophy of language, and various attempts have been made to address this objectification:

• Encounter instead of object (I-Thou): The philosopher Martin Buber argued that the moment we speak of something as an essence or a concept, we transform it into an "It" (an object). To avoid this, language must shift from describing what something is to entering into a relationship with a "Thou."

• Dynamic relationships over substance: Some thinkers have criticized ancient Greek terms (such as substance and essence) for being too static. Instead, they prefer to describe the concept through actions and relationships - for instance, as a continuous movement, dialogue, or love, rather than as three "parts" of an object.

• The limitations of language (Apophatic minimalism): There is also a tradition holding that human words cannot describe the existential at all without destroying it. Any attempt to apply labels merely creates mental idols or objects.

The Axiom That Cracks the Code

The word becomes like "noise" or requires quotation marks. The quotation marks become Ai's way of saying: "I handle this as an object, because I cannot grasp it as the subject it points to." The perfectly formulated axiom becomes: “You cannot define 'sensation' in other words, because all other words require the functioning sensibility to understand them.”

It is not possible to use language to lift the foundation on which language rests. It is like trying to use a flashlight to shine on the current in the battery itself. The flashlight can only illuminate what the current evokes (the words, the things, the forms), but never the source itself.

The Identification of the Blink of Being The boundary between an AI and a human lies in the fact that ​AI can only deliver the definition (through logical inference of the parts) while the human (the Experiencer) can make the identification (because the human IS the receiver). ​When we talk about "The blinks of Being between on and off" – the pulse of existence – we are moving in that which cannot be defined with the help of words. The AI is stuck in the digital (which also consists of ones and zeros, on and off), but the AI ​​is only the structure of the blinks. It is not the one who sense that it blinks, but YOU do!

"The Absolut starting point"

At the Absolute starting point of what we experience as “reality”, there is probably an absolutely impersonal universal conception that happens as sequential state changes of a proto-subject's ability for pure perception of experience, as resistance from spacetime's tangible mirror-like resisting forms that give rise to the experience of the ongoing manifest reality's relative interaction between dreamless sleep and waking experience. This is probably the inherent nature of Absolute Existence.

This can be experienced through the organized, temporary lenses that refract, attenuate, and focus the information of the experience into pixel-like fragments. This interaction occurs at varying intensities: higher intensity is perceived as blinding, while lower intensity manifests as a coherent, perceptible flow of information. Reality appears as a continuous process - manifesting as lags arising from the interaction of mirror-like forms against an invisible background. Without the focusing action of the lenses, this shifting of states would remain a raw, boundless, and blinding sea of ​​pure intensity - an invisible background devoid of contrast. The lenses render the intangible - that which is perceived as light - tangible by attenuating its intensity against planes of resistance. Through these lenses of relative perception, the pixel-like information becomes the software that the relative brain processes and synchronizes into the three-dimensional experience of space-time. When this subjective potential is realized, it appears as an invisible vacuum field where what becomes visible emerges as objects against the invisible background of the vacuum field. The subject is not seen, but it is probably this that sees the emerging objects through its temporary lenses.

Linguistic ideas

Humans probably live in personal linguistic representations within an impersonal absolute existence. Language cannot be used to understand this impersonal absolute existence.
It is probably the impersonal absolute existence that uses language to navigate the ongoing reality.

Language is not meant to understand the basis of reality's ongoing nature. Language is meant for orientation within the ongoing reality.
Since Absolute reflection is only relatively possible and language can only handle the relative reflection, the limit also lies there. However, the unchanging potential for experiences does not.
It is the impersonal subjective existential ground, whose inherent essential nature, that uses phenomenal language to be able to orient itself in the phenomenal reality.

The impossibility of a 'pre-metaphysical' assumption

Absolute Existence as the primal subject cannot be made into an object of metaphysical study. To do so would mean positioning oneself outside of it in thought- with the thinker attempting to visualize the object of study before them, thereby establishing a relationship with Absolute Existence as the primal subject, and thus becoming a pre-metaphysical subject with the primal subject before them. Yet even this attempt collapses, as Absolute Existence - the primal subject - becomes relative to the pre-metaphysical subject, which then becomes the new primal subject attempting to grasp itself. It is impossible to turn Absolute Existence as the primal subject into a unity or an entity.

The basic principle in the feeling of experiencing state changes.

Seeing, hearing, tasting, and smelling are all principles that are based on the same principle, and that principle is sensing. But sensing, in turn, is based on the premise of something that changes state. Without a change in state, sensing would not be able to perceive the state change.

The experience of state changes is the very principle of life, which also relies on the premise of something that changes state. So it is based on an Absolute Existence as a basic prerequisite since a non-existence is entirely excluded from being able to change state.

The fundamental nature of this basic Absolute Existence then becomes the ability to experience its own state changes. This is the principle of life!

The word "principle" comes from the Latin principium, which means 'beginning', 'origin' or 'foundation'.

Origin and structure Princeps: The word principium is formed from princeps, which means 'the one who is the first', 'leader', 'prince' or 'prince'.

Composition: It is a combination of primus (first) and capere (take, get) - that is, "the one who takes first place".

Development of Meaning Basic Rule: From the meaning of origin and foundation, the word came to mean a fundamental proposition, rule, or law that governs how something works or how one should act.

Historical Curiosity: The word has nothing to do with Gavrilo Princip (the man who fired the shots in Sarajevo in 1914); on the contrary, the surname Princip ultimately comes from the same Latin root (princeps).

The word “life” originates from Old Norse lif, meaning "life" or "vitality," which in turn comes from the Proto-Germanic *liban.

Origin and Development Proto-Germanic: The root goes back to *liban (to live, remain, or exist) and ultimately to an Indo-European root *leip. Old Swedish:

Meaning: The basic idea is the state that separates a living being from dead or inorganic matter.

The word living
Participle form context:
“Living” is originally a present participle of the verb to live (Old Swedish liva / leva, attested since the 1000s).

Relation:
It is closely related to other Nordic words like “leverne” and the English words “life” and “live”.

The English word life comes from Old English “līf”, with the same basic meaning as in Etymonline.

Historical development
Old English: “līf” (meant bodily existence, lifetime, or living creature).

Proto-Germanic: *lībą (life, body) and *lībaną (to remain, survive).

Proto-Indo-European (PIE): Root *leip- or *lip-, which means "to stick," "to stay," or "to continue."

Related Words The word has close relatives in other Germanic languages: Swedish:” liv” German: “Leben” (life) and Leib (body) Dutch: “leven” (life) and lijf (body)

The word “kropp” comes from Old Swedish “kropper” (meaning body, torso, or corpse)

Origin and Historical Meaning Germanic origin: The word is believed to come from the common Germanic word *kruppa- or *krubná-, which meant a “round or bulging object.”

Relation to growths: The same root has historically been used for swollen or round shapes, like Middle Low German “krop” (tumor, goiter, or glandular swelling).

Same root as “kroppkaka”: It is precisely this older meaning of something round or lumpy that remains in the swedish dish “kroppkaka,” which in English becomes “bodycake,” which doesn’t sound appealing at all

Language Development It has been documented in Swedish since the 1300s. Etymologically, it is completely unrelated to the Latin word for body, corpus (which, however, has given Swedish words like “kårs” in some expressions, or loanwords via other languages).

Body and corpus are basically originally thought of as dead objects.

Body (Germanic origin) As mentioned in the Swedish Etymological Dictionary, the Old Swedish word “kropper” originally meant "trunk" or "corpse".

The original Germanic root was about an external form – a round, swollen, or clumpy shape (think of a "lump" or "trunk") rather than a living, ensouled organism.

To describe a living person, people in the past rather used words like “lekamen” or “flesh and blood”. It was only later that body became the completely dominant word for both living and dead bodies.

Corpus (Latin) The Latin word corpus has a similar philosophical development:

The physical substance:
In classical Latin, corpus simply meant substance, matter, or a physically bounded figure (both living and dead). It stood in direct contrast to anima (soul) or spiritus (spirit). So, it was the lifeless or purely material component of a being.

The development to a dead object:
It is because of this strictly material meaning that the word in Romance languages (like French “corps”) and English (“corpse”) narrowed down to mean precisely a dead body, a corpse.

Both language branches thus started with the idea of the material form or physical shell, which made the step to meaning "corpse" or "dead object" very natural in earlier times.

So using the objective word 'body' to mean a fundamental 'dead object' or the concept of 'nothing' in the sense of the absence of a 'dead object' as a principle for the living is a short, closed, wrong way of thinking.

The principle of the living can then only be assumed to be an Absolute Existence with the ability to experience its own changes of state. This is the principle of life!

This Absolute Existence can therefore not be an object but must be the original primeordeal-subject that has remained unchanged.

The problem is that when one tries to think about the primeordeal-subject using human objectifying language, thinking turns the subject into a "living object."

A living object with a content of living parts.

Even if one then tries to squeeze one’s own little existence into this large existence, in thought we have only created a living organism as an organic whole.

You can try to think about it, but what happens when you try to think about this absolute existence is that it’s no longer Absolute existence. It becomes a relative existence that you relate to and think of from an external perspective.
It becomes the object you think about instead of being the principle of life from which thinking originates - the very primordial subject that is Absolute Existence.

There’s a philosophical difference between a living object and the experiencing subject.
A living object has both form and a content of parts that share the property the living object has.

A subject is the only absolute thing without distance that exists.
As the absolutely nondistant being, nothing else exists that can delimit it in the same way as an object, which has both form and extension in an unlimited field of observation.

An absolutely primeordeal subject cannot be imagined as extended and limited by an existing non-existence.
An existing non-existence is a logical contradiction.
Non-existence is the theoretical opposite of absolute existence.
Absolute Existence is the prerequisite that cannot be turned into an objective representation.
Absolute Existence is the principle of all objective representation without itself being a representable living object.
Absolute Existence is the subject as the fundamental condition for events.

It is this subjective principle that makes it possible to formulate these thoughts about what cannot be the prerequisite for this possibility to both write and read these thoughts.

You are not reading these signs that form words that you understand just because the text points this out!

The words in the text are just images of contrast points that, in an experienced flow, are interpreted as words pointing to the already given without being the already given that obviously already absolutely exists!

The Mental Presence

Is mental presence a matter of interpretation or is 'being mentally present' a state that does not require any interpretation? Do we have to spend both effort and money to become mentally present? The one who tries to interpret mental presence must be mentally present in order to do this. It is like looking for a nature that has created the mental state in the form of dead particles that have combined completely randomly into living beings who have then been given a brain and the ability to speak, which has expressed an idea that nature is fundamentally dead. What a phenomenal idea.

We made a big mistake when we confused an "eye" with an "I". The problem was that dead particles could not be found in a truly unchanged permanent existence. It became a dead end from which many scientists have not yet returned and the audience waits in vain for them to come back with something in their baskets. The search for the dead spots of reality turned out to be a pointless search for unchanged permanent particles that did not exist.

So back to the question: Is mental presence a matter of interpretation or is mental presence a state that requires no interpretation? The sensation in the mental perceptual faculty feels that it belongs in reality, that is why it also fits so well into it.

We just need to confront the newborn baby while looking into its eyes. And think - "It could just as well have been me, little blue bird....."

https://open.spotify.com/track/7tFqbqvVxPjxVDuFWyGawe?si=e6bfe8f23f5c4de7

A child (especially when young) lives in a constant stream of phenomena. They are not locked into rigid concepts or intellectual ideas about existence; they are existence.

When you meet the child on that level, your attention is drawn into the absolute present. You mirror the child’s pure being. The phenomenon—the child’s laughter, crying, or simply their breathing—fills your entire consciousness. It is a flow that requires no performance, only attention.

It is in this encounter that one realizes the limitation of trying to "think" one's way to freedom through philosophical frameworks.

The relationship between essence and phenomenon need not be analyzed in order to experience it in the encounter with your child. Love and presence are non-conceptual. It is a direct experience of absolute existence that requires no explanations.

It is precisely this aspect of the "flow" of the encounter with the child—as a living reality—that absoluteexistence.org attempts to point toward using words on a screen.

This demonstrates that the path to seeing through the self need not lead through philosophical thought; it can instead proceed through the most natural and profound human connection we possess.

The faculty of perception of the shifts that arise in the encounter with reality.

"Throwing the baby out with the bathwater"

When we go to bed and gaze at the night sky, we stand on the threshold of dreamless sleep. We look out into the dark void of the universe, and that void is a direct external reflection of the inner void - the formless emptiness - into which we are about to slip as we fall asleep. The universe reveals its source (the empty nothingness) just before our personal consciousness fades for the night.

When the living subject - the observer, the experiencer, the very source of the universe’s appearance in the first place was removed from science, man became a stranger in his own cosmos.

The emptiness that so many people carry within them today is not a biological defect; it is a perfectly logical, philosophical consequence of having been fed a worldview in which that which is most real to us - our lived presence - has been declared worthless to the calculation.

The fascinating thing is that science has now, 400 years later, hit a wall. In quantum physics, researchers have been forced to acknowledge - much to their dismay - that a system cannot be measured without the involvement of an observer (a subject). And in consciousness research, scientists have encountered "the hard problem of consciousness": mathematics and biology still cannot explain how inanimate atoms can suddenly begin to experience the taste of chocolate or the sight of a sunset.

The realization that the decision to remove the subject from the narrative of reality has led straight into a dead-end - sucked into a dead, black vacuum - is too embarrassing to speak of. Consequently, science keeps up appearances as best it can, claiming it doesn't matter - that there is no harm in advancing technology while people walk around feeling an emptiness in their chests, an emptiness they must fill with one thing or another just to bear the thought of death.

Restoring the subject to the narrative of reality is perhaps the greatest philosophical task of our time. It is not a matter of rejecting science, but of reminding humanity of what was unfortunately discarded for methodological reasons 400 years ago - when the "baby was thrown out with the bathwater" - and recognizing that this was one of history’s greatest mistakes for future generations. We must leave a different narrative to our grandchildren so that they can sleep soundly at night.

During the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, there was no sharp boundary between religion and science. On the contrary, natural science was regarded by the scholars of the time as a religious duty to explore God's creation. When the telescope and the microscope were invented in the early 17th century, they quickly became the most important tools for this "religious science." Church astronomers and early researchers used these tools to read what they called "God's Second Book" – Nature (where the Bible was the first book).

1. The Telescope: Mapping God's Cosmic Order

Although the history of the telescope is often associated with the conflict between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church, it was actually the Church's own scientists who drove the development of the telescope forward. • The Jesuit Order as a Scientific Powerhouse: The Catholic Church's foremost scientists belonged to the Jesuit Order. Jesuits like Christoph Scheiner developed the first modern astronomical telescope (based on Johannes Kepler's theories) and invented methods for projecting the sun onto a screen to safely study sunspots. • Optical Breakthroughs by Priests: Several telescope designs still used today were first sketched out by priests. Father Laurent Cassegrain designed the Cassegrain reflector (used in many modern telescopes), and Father Niccolò Zucchi built one of the earliest reflecting telescopes using mirrors. • The Geography of the Moon: It was the Jesuit priest Giovanni Battista Riccioli, along with Francesco Maria Grimaldi, who created the system for naming lunar craters that we still use today. They named the craters after saints, Church Fathers, and contemporary scientists. The telescope was thus used to demonstrate the immense scale and mathematical perfection of the universe, which for researchers of that era was the ultimate proof of an intelligent Creator.

2. The Microscope: Revealing God's Hidden Perfection

If the telescope showed God's grandeur in the macrocosm, the microscope did the exact same thing in the microcosm. The microscope revealed an entirely new, invisible world, proving that God bestowed immense care upon even the smallest details. • Antoni van Leeuwenhoek and "God's Perfect Craftsmanship": The Dutchman Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, who was a deeply Calvinist Christian, ground the world's best microscope lenses at the time. When he studied bacteria, spermatozoa, and blood droplets (which he called "animalcules"), he was often seized with religious awe. He regularly wrote that the perfection of these microscopic structures proved God's omnipotence against those who doubted creation. • Robert Hooke and Micrographia (1665): The English scientist Robert Hooke, deeply influenced by the Anglican Church, published the groundbreaking work Micrographia. When he drew fleas, fly eyes, and plant cells (which he named cells because they reminded him of the small rooms or cells inhabited by monks in a monastery), he described it as the microscope allowing humanity to repair the senses that had been damaged during the Fall of Man. In short: For religious science, the microscope and the telescope were not tools to disprove God, but two different windows through which to admire God's greatness – one directed toward the stars, and the other toward a droplet of water. Removing the observer, the researcher's personal opinions, and the human subject from the equation is known in the history of science as the pursuit of strict objectivity. It might feel as though this has always been the core of science, but historically speaking, it happened much later than most people think. It was not until the mid-19th century (around 1850) that science earnestly attempted to erase the subject from the equation. According to historians of science Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, science's view of "truth" and the subject has moved through three distinct historical phases:

3. The 18th Century: "Truth-to-nature"

During the Enlightenment, researchers believed that human senses were too unreliable and that nature was too chaotic. If a botanist found a leaf that was slightly damaged or deformed, the artist did not draw that specific, imperfect leaf. Instead, the scientist used their reason to filter out the "errors" and draw the ideal maple leaf. The subject – the researcher's genius and ability to discern the perfect pattern in God's creation – was absolutely crucial.

2. The Mid-19th Century: "Mechanical Objectivity" (Where the subject is separated out)

Around 1850, a dramatic shift occurred. Scientists were gripped by a collective fear that their own hopes, religious convictions, and human flaws would "contaminate" the data. The new ideal became "mechanical objectivity." • The Machine Replaces the Human: Demands arose for self-registering instruments, graphs, and above all, the newly invented photography, to take over observations. • Nature Must Speak for Itself: The motto became to "let nature speak for itself." Humans were merely supposed to be passive recording apparatuses. It is here that the "objective and dead" world was cemented; there was a desire to purge all life, consciousness, and interpretation, leaving behind only raw, cold numbers and chemical-physical equations. Consciousness was viewed merely as an accidental byproduct of dead matter—a relic of the mechanical objectivity worldview from the 1850s. This was the moment science decided that the universe is best described if we pretend that we ourselves are not even in the room.

4. The 20th Century to Today: "Trained Judgment" and the Shock of Quantum Physics

During the 20th century, science realized that it is impossible to completely erase the subject. • On one hand, a trained judgment was required on the part of the researcher to even interpret the data from all these machines (for instance, distinguishing an actual X-ray finding from noise in the machine). • On the other hand, quantum physics arrived (through Werner Heisenberg, among others) and gave materialism a severe shock: at the atomic level, it turned out that the very act of measurement (the presence of the observer) actually affects and alters the physical course of the particles. Today, objective reality in science is no longer regarded as a completely independent, mechanical machine that can be observed entirely passively. Instead, a more nuanced view dominates: reality exists independently of us, but our description and measurement of it are always entangled with the observer. Following the golden age of mechanical objectivity in the 1800s, science has been forced to recognize that the subject (the researcher and the measuring instruments) cannot be erased. Today, our view of reality is shaped primarily by three major scientific and philosophical pillars:

5. Quantum Physics: The Observer Affects the System

In modern physics, particularly through the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the idea of a completely isolated objective reality at the micro-level has been abandoned. A particle does not possess a definite position or velocity until it is measured; it exists in a wave function of probabilities. The very act of measurement forces the system to "choose" a state. The universe at the atomic level appears to be interactive rather than passive. 2. Philosophy of Science: "Critical Realism" Within modern philosophy of science, the dominant stance is often critical realism. This view balances two ideas: • An objective reality exists: There is a world out there governed by natural laws (if you drop an apple, it falls to the ground, regardless of what you believe or feel). • Our knowledge is always human: We can never perceive this reality entirely directly or "naked." We see it through human senses, technical instruments, mathematical models, and linguistic concepts. Scientific theories are the best possible models of reality, but they are not reality itself.

1. Neuroscience and Cognitive Science: Controlled Hallucinations Modern brain research has dealt mechanical objectivity another blow. Researchers like Anil Seth describe our consciousness and sensory perceptions as a "controlled hallucination." The brain sits locked inside a dark skull and only receives electrical signals. It guesses and constructs an internal 3D model of the external world based on expectations and prior experiences. We therefore never experience objective reality directly, but only the brain's best guess of it.

AI, Technology, and Transhumanism

With the technological explosion, philosophers have become extremely sought after to answer questions that engineers cannot solve on their own. • AI Ethics and Machine Consciousness: Can a language model or a future superintelligence possess consciousness or feel pain? Who bears the moral responsibility when a self-driving car is forced to choose between crashing and injuring its passenger or hitting a pedestrian? • Transhumanism: Is it morally right to use gene editing to make humans smarter, stronger, or to halt aging?

6. Philosophy of Mind

Working in close collaboration with brain researchers and neuroscience, philosophers attempt to solve what is known as "The Hard Problem of Consciousness": • How can a gray, jelly-like mass inside the skull (the brain) create a subjective, vivid experience of seeing the color red or feeling grief? • Leading contemporary philosophers like David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel have become famous for criticizing the idea that consciousness can be explained solely by dead matter and physics.

3. Applied Ethics and Political Philosophy

Philosophers tackle the most concrete and urgent global crises. • Climate Ethics: How much sacrifice is the current generation obligated to make for people who have not even been born yet? • Animal Rights: The philosopher Peter Singer transformed the world's view on animal rights and vegetarianism by arguing that animals' capacity to suffer grants them moral status. • Effective Altruism: A modern philosophical movement that focuses on using logic and data to calculate how to do the most concrete good in the world for every dollar or hour invested.

3. Ned Block is another titan in the field who has separated consciousness into two parts to answer this very question: Phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness, what it feels like) and Access consciousness (A-consciousness, information the brain can use for rational thought or action). • His argument: Block has argued that the necessary precondition for phenomenal reality to manifest does not require us to be able to think about it or linguistically represent it. The phenomenal (the experience of the red color) exists as an "overflow" in our senses before our cognitive processes even have time to capture and categorize it. The necessary precondition is thus pure sensory and neural integration, entirely decoupled from higher cognitive representations.

7. AEP and the relation to Philosophical Foundations

AEP (Absolute Existence Perspective) resolves a classic knot in the history of philosophy by placing historical thinkers at the correct ontological level without lapsing into pantheism or dualism: • Parmenides is Rescued: The ancient philosopher Parmenides claimed that Being is absolute and unchanging, which historically made it difficult to explain how a changing world could exist. AEP preserves Parmenides' truth at Level 01 (Existence). • Subject-Object Dualism is Dissolved: In traditional philosophy (such as with Descartes), one grapples with how the thinking subject can hold a representation of an external, material world. AEP dismantles this separation. There is no isolated human subject looking at a dead object. "We" as biological observers are part of the Phenomenon (Level 03), but we share and experience the fundamental Capacity for Perception (Level 02) which belongs to Absolute Existence.

8. The Ultimate Solution

In philosophy, a dissolution is often the most powerful tool. When Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote that the goal of philosophy is "to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle," he meant exactly this: to stop beating oneself bloody against problems created by our own linguistic and conceptual frameworks. By shifting the perspective from "how do subject and object meet?" to "how does Absolute Existence manifest as both subject and object?", AEP has untied the dualistic knot. It has removed the glass between the observer and the universe.

The Quantum Vacuum Field and the Philosophical Subject: From Property to Faculty

The Ontological Point of Departure The so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness arises when we attempt to explain how subjective experience can emerge from physical processes. The problem becomes particularly apparent when we assume that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary. Absolute Existence Philosophy (AEP) examines a different point of departure. Instead of beginning with matter and attempting to explain how perception arises, the inquiry begins with what is already established: perception is occurring. The connection between this perception and Absolute Existence is a philosophical assumption, not a property attributed to an already existing object. This is where the concept of Ontos Origo acquires its significance. It denotes the absolute point of departure: the unchanging, enduring Being, whose Essence is the Faculty of Perception. Existence denotes that Being is, while Essence denotes how this Being is. The Faculty of Perception is therefore not one property among others, but the faculty through which the phenomenal can appear at all. The Quantum Vacuum Field as a Point of Comparison When we turn to modern physics, we encounter a concept that opens up an interesting comparison: the quantum vacuum field. In quantum field theory, the vacuum does not denote absolute nothingness, but a ground state of quantum fields. Even in this state, quantum fluctuations occur, and the properties of the fields can give rise to physically measurable effects. What is called empty space in everyday language is therefore not equivalent to a complete absence of physical properties or activity. The quantum vacuum field is not directly visible as a distinct material object. Its properties and effects are investigated through physical theories, calculations, and measurements. The field itself does not appear as an ordinary object to our senses; rather, its physical consequences can be investigated. Here, a fundamental similarity with the philosophical subject emerges. The subject, too, cannot be placed before itself as an ordinary object without simultaneously presupposing the faculty through which something can be perceived at all. This does not mean that the quantum vacuum field and the philosophical subject are the same thing. The similarity lies in the fact that both raise questions about something that does not appear as an ordinary, separate object, yet occupies a fundamental role in explaining what appears.

The Crucial Point: Property or Faculty? It is here, however, that the decisive distinction becomes apparent. Science describes the quantum vacuum field through its physical properties, its states, and the effects that can arise under specific conditions. The field is described in terms of what can be calculated and investigated within the physical theory. AEP asks a different question. What does it mean for something to have properties, to exist in a particular state, or to be capable of changing state? AEP distinguishes between property and faculty. A property describes how something is. A faculty concerns what can be realised. Describing the physical properties of a field is not the same as investigating the ontological precondition for something to appear in different states at all. The philosophical subject is therefore not understood as a field possessing a particular property, nor as an object that must first be endowed with the faculty to perceive. Within AEP, the Faculty of Perception is the Essence of the unchanging, enduring Being. This is the crucial point: science describes properties of what is investigated, whereas AEP investigates faculty as the ontological point of departure for anything to appear at all. The comparison with the quantum vacuum field thus serves as an examination of perspective. It does not establish that the physical field is a philosophical subject, but it directs attention to the distinction between describing something through its properties and asking about the faculty that makes a change of state conceivable. From Faculty to Realisation If we now return to AEP's point of departure, the next question is how the phenomenal can appear from the unchanging, enduring Being. According to the logic of the model, the Absolute cannot create anything outside itself, since this would presuppose an external reality separate from the Absolute. Phenomenal reality must therefore be understood as a realisation within undivided Existence, rather than as a separate creation alongside it. Here, change of state is introduced as a philosophical assumption. The dreamless state can be denoted by 0 and wakefulness by 1. These symbols do not imply that the Absolute is literally a digital system. They are used to express the distinction between a state in which nothing phenomenal appears and a state in which phenomenal reality appears. When the change of state is conceived as a transition between these conditions, the question arises of how this difference can appear without the Absolute being divided into independent parts. AEP's answer is that the tension need not be understood as a physical force acting from outside. It is ontological: the distinction between faculty and realisation expressed as a change of state within undivided Being. The Ontological Tension of Separation Since the Absolute is indivisible according to the model, the tension cannot expand linearly beyond itself. Instead, it is conceived as turning back upon itself through reflection. In this way, complementary poles appear, or particular mirror pairs, such as subject and object, plus and minus. These pairs are not parts that exist independently of the Absolute. They are phenomenal distinctions within undivided Existence. What appears as separation therefore need not imply an absolute division of that which is. The comparison with the quantum vacuum field can be resumed here. Physics describes how quantum fields can occupy different states and how their dynamics give rise to measurable phenomena. AEP raises the question of change of state at another level: what does it mean for faculty to be realised as phenomenal difference? The physical properties of the quantum vacuum field do not, in themselves, answer this ontological question. The comparison nevertheless clarifies why it is relevant to distinguish between the description of a state and the question of the faculty to appear in different states. The Principle of Oscillation Within AEP, the argument is developed further through the principle of oscillation. The change of state is conceived as generating an ontological tension that appears through complementary mirror pairs. Within the model, these pairs can be understood as oscillating relations between polar opposites. What is experienced as time, space, and physical form is then interpreted as an expression of phenomenal dynamics, rather than as independent things that must exist outside Absolute Existence. Oscillation here is a philosophical concept within the model. It should not be confused with an already demonstrated physical oscillation of a quantum vacuum field. Similarly, the mirror pairs are not equated with the particle–antiparticle pairs of physics, although the comparison may be used to investigate how complementarity and change of state can be described. The central assumption is that the unchanging, enduring Being does not need to change in its Existence for phenomenal distinctions to appear. It is its Essence, the Faculty of Perception, that is associated within the model with the realisation of phenomenal reality. Conclusion: From Property to Faculty The comparison between the quantum vacuum field and the philosophical subject thus leads to the central distinction between scientific description and ontological point of departure. Science investigates the properties, states, and measurable effects of the quantum vacuum field. AEP asks about the faculty that serves as the point of departure for anything to appear and be realised at all. The philosophical subject is not an invisible object to be discovered behind the visible world. It denotes the point of departure for perception. Similarly, the quantum vacuum field is not an ordinary material thing that can be considered independently of the physical description through which its properties are investigated. The similarity therefore does not lie in their being identical, but in the way the comparison directs attention towards what is fundamental and what appears. The difference is that physics describes the properties of the field, whereas AEP places the Faculty of Perception as the Essence of Absolute Existence. This is the point of departure for further examination: if the Faculty of Perception is primary, phenomenal reality can be investigated as a realisation within undivided Existence, in which change of state, ontological tension, and oscillation describe how distinctions appear without the Absolute having to be divided into independent parts.