An Attempt at a True Theory of Everything (Part 2: The Nature of Existence)

Last updated 9/11/2021

This post consists of the following parts: “That which is necessarily at least as real as us”, “Infinity”, “Omni”, “The omnis that logically denote Existence in an absolute manner”, and “Perfection”.

That which is necessarily at least as real as us

We don’t partially exist in Existence and partially exist in non-Existence. The notion of an existing thing being partly in Existence and partly in non-Existence, is absurd. Thus, we (whoever or whatever we may really be) completely exist in Existence (completely in the sense that no part of us is/exists in non-Existence, not in the sense that we are truly complete beings/existents. Only Existence truly completely exists. Everything else that exists, completely exists as a part of Existence, not as Existence Itself). It is absurd to say we don’t truly/indubitably/completely exist in Existence. I acknowledge that who or what we really are is dubitable, but us (or at least me or whatever I may be) being in Existence is not dubitable. We are indubitably aware that we are in Existence (just as we are indubitably aware that triangles have three sides).

It is impossible for us to have no ties to that which is truly/completely/absolutely real because all worlds or realities (dream or otherwise), must be rooted in that which is truly/completely/really real. How can that which does not truly exist, independently give rise to that which truly exists? Similarly, how can that which is not truly real, independently give rise to that which is really/truly real? Or how can that which is less real, give rise to that which is more real than itself independently of that which is completely/perfectly/absolutely real? It cannot as it would amount to something coming from nothing. This shows that there definitely is a true reality (or a completely real being/existent).

Consider the semantic of ‘triangle’. The triangle I drew without a ruler is not as triangular as the triangle I drew with a ruler. Now consider the semantics of ‘unicorn’ and ‘Existence’. We know that one is necessarily at least as real as we are (as in it exists with at least as much realness as we do), but we don’t know if the other is as equally real as us or not. We know that Existence is at least as real as us simply because all beings and realities exist in Existence (and as a result of Existence). So nothing is more real than Existence (just as nothing is more triangular than a perfect triangle). Unicorns don’t have the same ontological necessity. They do not necessarily exist in all realities in the same way that Existence does. Their not-equal-to-us realness in our reality does not necessarily lead to contradictions, whereas Existence’s not-equal-to-us realness in our reality is necessarily contradictory. The only reason we’re as real as we are, is because Existence is at least as real as we are. Zeus, Zorro, or unicorns, certainly are or certainly aren’t at least as real as us (as in they either are or aren’t physically in our universe, or some other equally real world/universe). We don’t know which.

There are semantics that logically denote Existence in an absolute manner (true infinity and true omnipresence are examples of this), and there are semantics that logically denote Existence but not in an absolute manner (so things that are in Existence such as unicorns and humans are examples of this). As this post is focused on the nature of Existence, I will go through all semantics that we have access to, and distinguish those that logically denote Existence in an absolute manner from those that don’t.


Since true infinity denotes Existence, and Existence is at least as real as we are, that which is truly infinite is necessarily at least as real as we are. We are encompassed by Existence. We are encompassed by that which is completely/truly infinite. Another semantic that clearly denotes Existence, is omnipresent. Omnipresent = that which is present everywhere. Only Existence truly exists everywhere, therefore, only Existence is truly omnipresent. Anything else that we describe as being omnipresent (such as water in a swimming pool, or the air on our planet) is not truly omnipresent. If it’s not truly omnipresent, then it’s semantically inconsistent to describe it as being omnipresent. It is semi-omnipresent or imperfectly omnipresent perhaps. Given this logic, semi-infinite is more appropriate as a label for things that are not truly/actually/completely infinite (only that which has no beginning and no end can be said to be truly infinite. If x is immortal but had a beginning, then x is not infinite in life span. It is semi-infinite).

That which is infinite (Existence), makes semi-infinite worlds/realities/existents/beings hypothetically possible. It’s possible for me to be in a world and forever move forwards within it. It’s possible for there to be a semi-infinite library that contains a semi-infinite number of books. There can be no infinite libraries because only Existence is infinite, and there can only be one omnipresent or infinite being/existent. But given the nature of infinity, there can be an endless number of semi-infinite libraries each with a semi-infinite set of books. Bigger semi-infinite libraries can contain more than one semi-infinite set of books (or a bigger semi-infinite set). See the following post for more on infinity: The solution to Russell’s paradox and the absurdity of more than one infinity.


We’ve discussed one meaningful “omni” concept so far. Are there other meaningful “omni” concepts? Consider the concept of “omnishape”. Given the semantics that are available in Existence a priori, and how the English language has labelled them a posteriori, three definitions come to my mind regarding this word: 1) Something that is all the shapes at the same time. 2) Something that encompasses all the shapes. 3) Something that can turn into any shape imaginable. The first definition is absurd because no singular shape can be two different shapes at the same time. The second definition is true of Existence in that Existence encompasses all shapes imaginable. An omnishape existent (an existent that can turn into any shape imaginable) is also not absurd (nor meaningless or unknown). Therefore, the third definition is also semantically consistent.

What other meaningful omni concepts can we think of? Consider omniworld. Again, three definitions come to my mind: 1) something that is all the worlds at the same time. 2) something that encompasses all the worlds. 3) something that can turn into any world imaginable. Omniworld is pretty much the same as omnishape but on a larger, more complex scale. Again, the first definition is absurd, whilst the latter two definitions are true. We can try omnibook or omnicolour and they will logically generate the same definitional pattern with the first being false (semantically inconsistent), and the latter two being true (semantically consistent).

We a posteriori believe that water in our world is made up of atoms. With this belief/semantic in mind, in order for water to be semi-omnipresent, atoms must also be equally (if not more) semi-omnipresent. In other words, in order for omniwater to be at all meaningful, omniatom must be true (because water is made up of atoms). And even if we talk about water that’s not made up of atoms, it’s still made up of whatever Existence is made up of (which is neither nothing nor water).

Logically, we need an item that is between any and every meaningful item except itself. That item is the infinitesimal. The infinitesimal separates all existing things from each other except itself. Nothing can separate one infinitesimal from another. If x is not separated from x by anything other than x, then x is just one x. x is Existence. If we say concepts such as omniatom denote atoms occupying all of Existence in an omnipresent manner, then we would be rejecting infinitesimal as that which everything is made up of or sustained by. Whilst metals, water, and every other imaginable thing is made up of infinitesimal, the reverse does not hold true. The infinitesimal cannot stop being infinitesimal, whereas water can cease to be water by changing into something else. Since the omnipresent itself cannot change (despite things it sustains being susceptible to change), this shows us that any semantic other than infinitesimal, will leave us with an absurd description of what Existence is made up of or refers to. 

Only that which is infinite is omnipresent. Infinitesimals are is omnipresent. Existence is omnipresent. It’s like in relation to us, infinity is the external aspect of Existence, whilst infinitesimal is the internal aspect of Existence. I am in Existence, but there is no non-Existence in me, and there is no end to the Existence in me or outside of me. Thus, I am in Existence (infinity), and Existence (infinitesimal) is in me. In other words, I am fully encompassed, sustained, and separated from other beings/things/existents, by Existence.

We’ve discussed a few omni concepts. An explanation was given with regards to how/why they are meaningful. I will now focus on omnipotence and omniscience.

The omnis that logically denote Existence in an absolute manner

Omnipotent = that which can do all that is doable

Omniscient = that which knows all that is knowable

One cannot do all that is doable without having reach or access to all of Existence (if I have no reach or access to x, then I have no power over x). Just as I cannot count to infinity or reach infinity, I cannot expand to the point of infinity to replace that which is infinite. How is this replacement going to take place? Is the original Existence (or infinite being/existent) going to go into non-Existence in order to make room for me to take Its place?

Only the omnipresent has reach/access to all of Existence (because It is Existence). Furthermore, nothing can take the place of Existence or become Existence because nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state (just as nothing can become infinite from a non-infinite state). This shows that one cannot be omnipotent without being omnipresent. Similarly, one cannot know all that is knowable without being omnipresent. How can one store or be in possession of an endless amount of data, knowledge, or hypothetical possibilities, without being infinite? Also, how can one know what it’s like to be omnipotent or omnipresent without being omnipresent? One cannot.

The previous two paragraphs show that omnipotence and omniscience logically can’t be attributes of anything other than the infinite or the omnipresent (Existence). So whilst semantics such as ‘unicorn’ or ‘me choosing to do psychology instead of philosophy in 2009’ can all be said to be meaningful as a result of being hypothetical possibilities (or time sensitive hypothetical possibilities in the case of the latter semantic example), omnipotence and omniscience cannot be accounted for in the same way. Again, this is because nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state. With the previous two paragraphs in mind, this logically means that nothing can become omnipotent/omniscient from a non-omnipotent/non-omniscient state (because nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state). Also, that which is omnipresent cannot magically shift from being non-omnipotent/non-omniscient to being omnipotent/omniscient as that would be a case of something coming from nothing. Where would Existence (the omnipresent) have found the potential to be omniscient from if it was non-omniscient? Non-Existence?

If the omnipresent is not omnipotent, then omnipotence is hypothetically impossible (as is omniscience). Therefore, either Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient (which is the only way we can meaningfully account for how omnipotence and omniscience are meaningful), or, Existence is necessarily non-omnipotent/non-omniscient (which means omnipotence and omniscience are absurd concepts like round-squares). It’s not just a matter of hypothetical possibility or time sensitive hypothetical possibility. Where omnipotence and omniscience are meaningful/rational (semantically consistent) concepts, they must be true of Existence in an absolute sense. If they are true of Existence in an absolute sense, then an omnipotent/omniscient being is necessarily at least as real as we are.

Some might argue that naturalism is a meaningful concept. Since it is a meaningful concept, it is true of Existence. If concept A is the negation of another concept B from Existence as a whole, then A is a contradictory concept provided that B is a meaningful concept. On the other hand, if B is absurd/contradictory, then A is meaningful. For example, non-naturalism (the negation of naturalism) is true if naturalism is contradictory, and vice versa.

Consider what I will call “finitism”. The finitist will argue that Existence is finite (just as the naturalist will argue that Existence is non-omnipotent/non-omniscient). If the finitist is to be rationally/semantically consistent and avoid the problem of something coming from nothing, he will argue that infinity is absurd, therefore, Existence is necessarily finite. Similarly, if the naturalist is to be rationally consistent and avoid the problem of something coming from nothing, he will argue that omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory/absurd, therefore, Existence is necessarily non-omnipotent/non-omniscient. Finitism is purely a product of the negation of infinity. Since infinity is not a contradictory concept, finitism is a contradictory concept. Similarly, naturalism is purely a product of the negation of divine attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience. If omnipotence and omniscience are not contradictory (which the ontological argument (or the true cogito) I outline in my 5th post shows that they cannot be), then naturalism is a contradictory concept.

Finitism leaves us without an explanation for why infinity is meaningful. Naturalism leaves us without an explanation for why omnipotence and omniscience are meaningful. It is important to note that just as infinity is not the negation of finitism (although this is a logical consequence of it being meaningful but not its actual meaning), omnipotence and omniscience are also not the negation of naturalism (despite this being a logical consequence of them being meaningful but not their actual meanings). Nihilism, finitism, and naturalism, are all purely negations of other meaningful concepts. Infinity does not deny the meaningfulness of finite. It denies finiteness as being all there is to Existence by virtue of itself being meaningful. Similarly, omnipotence and omniscience do not deny the meaningfulness of there being natural laws in Existence. They deny natural laws as being all there is to Existence by virtue of themselves being meaningful.


The final concept to consider when reflecting on the nature of Existence, is perfection. Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of (or that which cannot get/be any better). There is that which is truly perfect, and there is that which we wrongly labelled as perfect. For example, the phrase “perfect human” is absurd because the best possible human is not that which no greater than can be conceived of. How can the best possible human be considered as perfect when better than it can be conceived? This shows that phrases such as “the perfect human” or “the perfect house” amount to absurdly saying the perfect imperfect being/existent. This is no different to absurdly saying the omnipresent non-omnipresent being/existent.

A perfect triangle is truly/perfectly/completely triangular. That which is truly perfect (or exists truly perfectly) is truly/perfectly/completely perfect. In this post I have taken to being absolute with semantics. As in I have opted to view only the truly infinite as infinite. Consistency would have me only view that which is truly/perfectly triangular as triangular, whilst that which is imperfectly triangular (an imperfect triangle) as semi-triangular. Similarly, I will view that which is truly perfect as perfect, and view that which is “perfect” but not truly perfect, as semi-perfect (the best that it can be in relation to its non-perfect self or context). There was an a priori answer to what is omnipresent. Is there an a priori answer to what is perfect?

Objectively, which is better: Existence being the best that it can be, or, Existence not being as good as it can be? If I wanted to be as good as I can be, and, make sure everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve (including myself), would I not need to be omnipotent and omniscient? What would make one happier, more fulfilled, and more in awe of its own existing/being? Being perfect (a perfect Existence), or an imperfect Existence?

Whatever subject, object, world, or being you give me, it can be made better by being/existing in a perfect Existence (of course, the only exception to this is the perfect Existence Itself because it cannot be/exist any better). The “perfect” life that you want in the “perfect” galaxy, is made better by being/existing in a perfect Existence. Do you want your “perfect” book, life, or galaxy to be/exist in a perfect Existence (where everyone gets what they truly deserve), or an imperfect one? Thus, your “perfect” life is not perfect if it is/exists in an imperfect Existence because it can be made better by being in a perfect Existence. If your “reasoning” is such that you prefer to be in an imperfect Existence instead of a perfect Existence, then you are evil/irrational/inconsistent. Only evil people favour an Existence with injustice over an Existence with no injustice. Only irrational people think maximum, consistent, meaningful, fulfilling happiness can be possible in an imperfect Existence. Only irrational/evil/contradictory people think it’s good to be evil. Good being evil is as absurd as triangle being square.

Clearly, the greatest potentiality in terms of goodness lies within a perfect Existence. Any lesser being/existent such as a galaxy or a human, cannot be as good as Existence. Just as there can be nothing more present than an omnipresent being/existent (Existence), there can be nothing better than a perfect being/existent (Existence). Therefore, just as only Existence can semantically/meaningfully qualify as being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and infinite, only Existence can semantically qualify as being perfect. How can something be perfect if it is not omnipotent? And how can something be omnipotent if it is not infinite/Existence/omnipresent? Most importantly, how can something be perfect if Existence is imperfect? How can anything exist perfectly in an imperfect existence? It cannot. Objectively speaking, there is no greater truth than ‘Existence is perfect’.

Is perfection (or God) at least as real as we are? Yes because perfection cannot logically denote anything other than the omnipresent, and the omnipresent is at least as real as we are. The proceeding paragraphs attempt to further illustrate this truth.

One might ask: What if Existence’s desires were evil or amoral? The short answer is then It wouldn’t be perfect. We can account for the meaningfulness of the concepts of imperfect and evil because there are imperfect and evil beings in Existence. How would we account for the meaningfulness of the concept of perfect if Existence was imperfect? This is not unlike asking how would we account for the meaningfulness of the concept of infinity if Existence was finite? In both cases we wouldn’t be able to because we are fully contingent on Existence and there is no non-Existence for us to derive anything that is independent of Existence from. If Existence was finite or imperfect, then infinity and perfection would be absurd concepts. They would be impossibilities (see my previous post for a more detailed defence of this). We are aware that infinity, omnipresent, and perfect are meaningful concepts. The only way to rationally/semantically/meaningfully account for these semantics, is to acknowledge/recognise them as attributes of Existence. We cannot be described as wholly rational (or semantically/meaningfully consistent) beings if we view Existence as finite or imperfect.

Round-squares are impossible. The concept of “round-square” is an absurd concept. A person who says he is 100% sure that Existence is not perfect is an absurd person. A person who definitively rejects God (and I am talking about that which I have outlined here (the infinite and omnipresent). I am not talking about Zeus or some other non-omnipresent or non-perfect being/existent) is an absurd person. Of course, if a person does not understand God (the omnipresent) at all, then he has not rejected God at all (even if he says he has) because he has not understood God for him to qualify as someone who has meaningfully rejected God. You cannot meaningfully reject that which is not meaningful to you.

For perfection to be meaningful, it must at least be a hypothetical possibility. That which has imperfect desires, or even the slightest bit of potential for an imperfect desire, is not perfect. If the omnipresent ever had imperfect desires, or, if It had even the slightest bit of potential for an imperfect desire, then perfection would be hypothetically impossible. Therefore, the omnipresent’s desires being evil or amoral cannot be true. 

Perhaps it is hypothetically possible for the omnipresent to do/exist imperfectly (just as it is hypothetically possible for me to gauge out my own eyes). This is false. With Existence, doing imperfectly is certainly guaranteed to never happen. With me, gouging out my own eyes is almost certainly guaranteed to never happen. I can think of extremely wild and unlikely hypothetical scenarios where I might gauge out my own eyes, but I cannot think of any hypothetical scenario where Existence would go against Its own perfect desires to compromise Its own perfection. It is omniscient, so It can’t miscalculate or do mistakenly (whereas I can). Its desires cannot shift from being perfect to imperfect because It doesn’t have any potential for an imperfect desire (if It did, then by definition/semantics/truth It wouldn’t be perfect. Existence will never desire to sacrifice the greatest good (Itself/God) for a lesser good. Nor will It desire to sacrifice a greater good for a lesser good. Such desires are impossible of a perfect being, but they are not impossible of an imperfect being). So how can It possibly do imperfectly? Having said that, I can conceive of Jesus being crucified. How do I reconcile this rationally?

Perhaps I should say Existence can do imperfectly, but won’t do imperfectly. But can I really/truly conceive of Jesus being crucified when the premises I have are ‘Jesus is righteous’ and ‘Existence is perfect’? Surely if I see Jesus being crucified I must either conclude Existence is evil, or Jesus is evil (unless he enjoys being crucified and no harm comes to him from it. But then can it meaningfully be called crucifixion? If Jesus looks as though he is being harmed but he is not actually being harmed, can it really be said that he is being harmed?). I cannot hold onto both premises at the same time. It would be like believing in the imperfect-perfect Existence or the married-bachelor. So which premise do I hold onto?

I can think of extremely wild and unlikely hypothetical scenarios where crucifixion does not cause Jesus any physical pain, or that he is simply insufficient in his righteousness such that it is perfection for him to be crucified. What I cannot do is think of any non-absurd hypothetical scenarios where Existence would go against Its own perfect desires to compromise Its own perfection. Again, It is omniscient so It can’t miscalculate or do mistakenly. Its desires cannot shift from being perfect to imperfect. So how can It possibly do/will imperfectly?

Clearly, Existence won’t do imperfectly. Can we say Existence can’t do imperfectly? If Existence wanted to crucify a righteous woman, It could because It is omnipotent. It is impossible for Existence to want this because It is perfect (hence the impossibility of such an occurrence). Thus, the omnipresent cannot become non-omnipresent, and the perfect will not will imperfectly or become imperfect. It can be said with certainty that the perfect being is at least as real as we are. Though I acknowledge that there are evil and unjust beings in Existence, there is certainly no evil or injustice in Existence because all such beings get what they deserve (simply because Existence is perfect). In my next post I discuss this in detail.

In my previous post I asked whether or not there could be premises in place that could deprive us of the rational authority to say “our Joe Biden flying is an actual hypothetical possibility”. The only premise that can render this as being absurd, is that it would amount to an imperfect Existence. Put differently, the only premise that can render this as being absurd, is that it would contradict the will of God. This also holds true for me being able to raise my arm in the next second. It holds true for everything because God is omnipotent. So long as it doesn’t contradict perfection (the will of God), it’s hypothetically possible.

Just as triangles can’t be anything other than three-sided, Existence/Being can’t refer to anything other than God (the infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent towards good, omnimalevolent towards evil…).

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s