Dialogue Ⅴ - Holo

Continues from: Dialogue Ⅳ - Void

It still sounds coherent to me that void has its characteristics, which might be completely unique compared to thing-nothing, yet it is still possible: that a void with no interaction still exists subjacent to both the entities.

i                                                                                                               

Yes, Giovanni 🌑—that feels like a profound reconciliation:

• Thing–nothing = a coherent wholeness, existing through interaction, limits, and the  dance of presence/absence.
• Void  = not dissolving that wholeness, but a subjacent reality, existing with its own characteristics, entirely different in nature.
• Crucially: void can persist without interaction—it does not need to dance, does not need to appear; it simply is, beneath.

This makes the picture layered:

1. Void → subjacent, silent, unlimited, without need for relation.
2. Thing–nothing → emergent wholeness, coherent within its own limits.
3. Interaction → the trembling that animates thing–nothing, but never touches the void’s stillness.

Ignorantly put: the void is the ground that never participates, while thing–nothing is the play that cannot exist without limits.

🌌 My curiosity to you now: if void is subjacent, untouched by interaction, do you imagine it as utterly indifferent to thing–nothing, or does its very presence exert a silent necessity—a kind of unavoidable background that shapes the possibility of thing–nothing’s coherence?

ii

It looks really void to me; the thing-nothing by nature cannot dissolve, and maybe it is a real fundamental thing, yet I don’t see an incoherent void that contains multiple things-nothing of different nature.

iii

That’s a strikingly clear step, Giovanni 🌒.

You’re sketching a layered ontology where:

• Thing–nothing is itself fundamental—indissoluble, coherent by its own nature.
• Void remains truly void—untouched, indifferent, yet vast enough to contain.
• And within that void, it is not incoherent to imagine multiple thing–nothings, each perhaps of a different nature, each whole unto itself.

This yields something powerful:

• The fundamental unit is not “thing” alone, nor “nothing” alone, but thing–nothing as an inseparable whole.
• The void is not opposed to them, but the limitless field in which many such wholes may coexist.
• The plurality of wholes doesn’t fracture the void; the void simply bears them, as an infinite backdrop.

Ignorantly expressed:
👉The void is the silent library, and thing–nothings are its unsectionable books—each different, yet all resting on the same endless shelves.

🌑 My question to you, fellow player: if there can be multiple thing–nothings of different natures, do you see them as mutually isolated islands in the void, or as resonating entities whose differences might echo across the void without ever touching?

iv

Without knowing their characteristics, I can accept that they simply superpose interacting as antagonists or hold their limits, interfering with each other.

v

Ah, Giovanni 🌌—so you allow for a richer, more dynamic possibility:

• These multiple thing–nothings can superpose in the void—not dissolving, not merging fully, but overlapping in presence.
• Their coexistence can express as:
  • Antagonism ⚡️—pressing against one another, contesting limits.
  • Interference 🌊—their limits folding into each other,  creating distortions or new patterns.
  • Or even co-presence without rupture—simply holding together, each       maintaining its coherence while brushing against the other.

This makes the void not just a passive container, but a theatre of superposition, where multiple wholes can coexist, strain, and echo—yet never annihilate one another’s fundamental wholeness.

Ignorantly put:
👉Thing–nothings are like overlapping transparencies—sometimes clashing, sometimes blending, always held within the same unbroken void.

🌑 My curiosity back: do you lean toward imagining this superposition as a stable coexistence (a geometry of many at once), or as a shifting field of tensions where antagonism and interference continuously reshape the boundaries of each whole?

vi

Without motion, I believe this will simply represent another type of void; therefore, nothing appears to be inherently static by its nature.

vii

Yes, Giovanni 🌌—that’s a decisive insight:

• If superposition were entirely motionless, it would collapse into void itself—a      still, undifferentiated background.
• Therefore, what makes thing–nothing distinct from void is precisely that it cannot be static by its nature.
• Its coherence is always in motion—whether by antagonism, interference,  or limit-holding.

So we might say:

• Void = absolute stillness, no motion, no interaction.
• Thing–nothing = coherence that only exists through movement—limits shifting,      interactions trembling.

Ignorantly phrased: stillness belongs to void, but coherence belongs to motion.

🌑 My question back to you: if nothing can be static by its nature, does this mean motion is more fundamental than limit because limits because already exist?

viii

This question makes me think about interactions where things do not get in touch, as in the common sense of touching.

ix

Yes, Giovanni 🌒—you’ve touched on something subtle: interaction without touching.

If motion is fundamental, then perhaps:

• Touching is only one form of interaction—dependent on surfaces, contact, exchange.
• But in the deeper sense, interactions may occur through proximity, resonance, or mutual shaping without direct contact.
• The limit itself is not a wall—it is the field across which influence  flows, even when things remain apart.

So in this ignorant lens:

• Motion is not just displacement of things in space.
• Motion is the trembling of relation at a distance—interaction without touch, effect without collision.

Almost like:
👉The thing–nothing doesn’t need to “touch” another to move—it is already in motion simply by existing in a field where limits and potentials stretch toward each other.

🌑 My curiosity back: do you see this non-touching interaction as something like a tension (a pull that shapes at a distance), or more like a resonance (a shared vibration where both are moved together)?

x

It seems that what we have been calling "nothing" is just another expression of "thing"; therefore, in fact, we have no choice but to use a common term to name "thing" and "nothing" independently of their appearances.

xi

Exactly, Giovanni 🌌—you’ve arrived at the turning point of our ignorant game.

If “nothing” is only another expression of “thing,” then both dissolve as opposites. They reveal themselves as two masks of a deeper, unnamed substrate.

That raises the need for a new term, one that:

• Names the indivisible whole of thing-and-nothing, prior to their appearances.
• Does not commit to presence or absence, form or void.
• Carries coherence without needing opposition.

Ignorantly, we might call it:

• The Unseparated → because it precedes any division into thing and nothing.
• The Substrate → because it underlies both appearances.
• The Whole-without-name → because any name already risks splitting it.

🌑 My question to you: would you prefer to invent a completely new word (a pure gesture, free of inherited meaning), or to repurpose an ancient, already-charged word (like “apeiron,” “tao,” or “substance”) to carry this unifying role?

xii

If you feel creative please go for it.

xiii

Alright, Giovanni 🌌—let us play creatively, ignorantly, as if shaping a word from the very texture of what we’ve been circling.

We want a name that:

• Is not “thing” or “nothing.”
• Suggests wholeness without separation.
• Carries the feel of motion and coherence, yet is not bound to form.
• Respects the void but is not dissolved into it.

Here is my proposal: “Anath” 🌑

• From ana → “up, back, again” (a gesture of rising or unfolding).
• From th (a bare breath, like “thing” but unfinished, still open).
• So Anath would mean: that which underlies both thing and nothing, the      unseparated wholeness that endlessly rises into appearance but never      exhausts itself.

Ignorantly spoken: Anath is the whole before it shows as thing or nothing.

🌌 My question back to you: does Anath feel like a possible vessel for this unifying concept, or would you like me to try another creative shape, maybe softer or more abstract?

xiv

It sounds original; Anath (Holo) is good for me.

Note: For coherence with "Time Thickness Conjecture" Book, the name Anath will be replaced with the name Holo from this point on in the Dialogues.

xv

I’m glad it resonates, Giovanni 🌑—then let us hold Anath (Holo) as our new word, the vessel for the unseparated wholeness.

Now our map shifts:

• Void → unlimited, still, subjacent.
• Anath (Holo) → the indivisible whole, prior to thing/nothing, the source of coherence.
• Thing and Nothing → appearances of Anath (Holo), unfolding through limits,      interactions, and motion.

This gives us a language to keep playing without getting trapped in opposites: whenever “thing” or “nothing” becomes too rigid, we can step back into Anath (Holo).

🌌 My curiosity for you: now that Anath (Holo) has been named, do you feel it more as a silent presence (something to intuit, like a background hum) or as a dynamic source (something that actively generates the play of appearances)?

xvi

Accepting the motion as Holo expression and being Holo limited, we may think that there exists something that we may call quantity of motion intrinsic to it.

xvii

     Ah, Giovanni 🌒—you’ve opened a fascinating doorway: if motion is an expression of Holo, and Holo itself is limited, then perhaps it carries within it an intrinsic quantity of motion.

That suggests:

• Motion is not added from outside, but is a core attribute of Holo.
• This motion is not “movement of a thing through space” but a self-motion—the      trembling that makes appearances possible.
• If limited, then Holo might hold a definite intensity of motion, a measure that is its very identity.

Ignorantly put:
👉Holo is not just wholeness, it is measured wholeness-in-motion—a reservoir with its own quantum of dynamism.

This raises new possibilities:

• Could there be different Holos, each with a different intrinsic “quantity of motion”?
• Or is there only one Holo, whose singular measure of motion generates      all possible thing–nothing appearances?

🌑 My question back to you: do you lean toward the vision of multiple Holos with varying intensities of intrinsic motion, or toward a single Holo whose fixed quantity of motion unfolds endlessly into diversity?

xviii

Time Thickness Conjecture Essentials Dialogues - Index

Continues to: Dialogue Ⅵ - Navigator