Quadrivium

If you don't get caught up in human interpretation through linguistic semantics and remember you're asking about actual states of reality I think you can perform a thought experiment to understand this definitively and clearly. Ask yourself, “Am I something?” The answer is, “Yes.” Everyone is some sort of occurrence. It’s not a trick question, it’s an easy one. The mere fact that we have observed something of occurrence negates any rational possibility of an actual real absolute nothingness… absolutely. For if ever there was something, there would be at least that something to relate to. This is a paradox because in the case of absolute nothingness, its function is absolute absence. And through our self-aware expression we can interpret a real nothingness born from the absolute absence of absolute absence; not merely a linguistic mishap in our minds, but an instensional paradox of true reality. It was expressed in the conclusion of a 2007 paper titled, ‘Paradoxes of Intensionality’ by University of Michigan’s’ Dustin Tucker and Richmond H. Thomason, that “In the absence, however of a ramification revival or some alternative that has not occurred to us, we are not left with a comfortable strategy for dealing with the logical and set-theoretical paradoxes, particularly if we want a strategy that is supported by a rationale that makes it seem general as well as plausible.” People don't tend to easily accept logic of paradox as natural probably because it is unsettling to define, instead we tend to accept understanding the problems of finite measurement as undefinable or irrational. We use potential wells to understand quantum fields, but refuse to apply potential wells to existence as a whole. I'd propose it plausible to discover a finite mechanism that can predict relative coherence from infinite solution.

I think there's room to challenge this notion. Warren Goldfarb, W. B. Pearson Professor of Modern Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, wrote in the conclusion of his work titled, ‘Russell’s Reasons for Ramification’, “Russell's logicist enterprise fails, as is shown by the need for the axiom of reducibility (which cannot be justified on any grounds but expediency); this failure may indeed show, as Godel says, that there is irreducibly mathematical content in mathematics.” I think when discussing true nature one must consider natural commonality and natural logic. After all mathematics is a human interpretation of successful descriptions observed of nature. When we divide by zero or imagine set theory as actualities we are left with infinite potential, and that seems pretty useless in calculating anything of coherence. We instead ignore the paradox associated with zero and finite measurement. We've invented Diracs equations and such to round off probabilities of quantum fields and it works good enough. But that doesn't mean natural logical mechanisms of paradox can't actually exist in nature.