1. All phenomenon continue through the mirroring of itself as repetition.
2. If a phenomenon mirrors nothing, it ceases to repeat as it is no longer mirroring itself or mirroring for that matter.
3. The absence of mirroring results in a variation of said being.
4. This variation is the original source in a new form.
1) A phenomenon is a phenomenon of the nature /or universe, or a metaphysical universe, whatsoever/. It is to say that what you've written in #1 is that "all phenomenon subordinate a certain law", or "all the phenomenon perform a certain principle", or, briefly, we can find some principle behind #1.
I don't know what hides behind #1. Why for a thing called 'phenomenon' is necessary to act exactly like this.
2) About #2. But how a thing - no matter what this thing - can do anything? I mean - how a thing can do or how anything can do with this thing? - With a certain law or a principle. If there were no principle behind it, no thing wouldn't do anything. So, there must be something. And I'm asking how
"a thing called 'phenomenon' can do something"?
To perform it this thing has to perform a certain law or a principle.
If this principle is like:
a) "an event E
1 and E
2 can occur simulateneously
b) "an event E
1 and E
2 can occur non simultaneously: E
1 > E
2 or E
2 > E
1.
c) (E
1 > E
2) or (E
2 > E
1) depends on another principle P.
What is that principle P?? I don't know either. It's not obvious for me why #2 has to subordinate exactly some principle P, not Pn.
Besides, in the first sentence you wrote "it mirrors..." while in another one "...no longer mirroring itself...", and that left me in wondering?
3) "The absence of mirroring" - that is you've written is what has to be in #1 case. Because Nothing must have no mirrors or mirroring properties. Your "Nothing" is your concept. So, if you take this concept, surely, you can operate it as you wish, but then how am I suppose to intersubjectively be sure in that?
For me "Nothing" as I wrote above is some x that for all y, if 'p = "x has y"', then p is false. And Nothing that has anything is an oxymoron. Maybe I confuse it with "emptiness". I'm not a English native language speaker, so I might be wrong.
Also, my opinion is that:
"any variations has something in common" or "there's no variations that don't have something in common"
I consider this to be true, because to say:
"A is different to B" or "A is a variation of B" is to be able to compare A and B, and for such an operation we need to have something common in A and B to be able to compare it. So:
"A is different to B" when and only when "A & B share something in common".
4) I like #4, I agree with it.
