Talk:UBT

Can this be described as "void"? Why would one use the term "UBT" over "void"? :D --Tristin (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Conceptually, UBT is "full" and emergence is a selective, constraining process from "everythingness". "Void" is usually considered an absolute absence or "not anything". For reality to emerge from this void, then, it must add itself. But one might ask "where is it adding itself from?" This puts the necessity of reality being self-contained, self-sufficient and self-sustaining at risk. BRA1N-b0X (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems, then, that "void" would be more akin to completely bound telesis -- absence of freedom -- all potential realized. James Bowery (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed definition "the absence of any information and order but only potential thereof".

This is a disciplined alternative to "the absence of information" -- it can be substituted for the term as well. The word "any" is redundant as are the words after "information". Such non-canonical alternatives are useful as clarifying context for the canonical definitions so long as they follow the discipline of substitutability. In order for the canonical definition to be adequate the words "absence" and "information" must be adequately defined. Perhaps "potential" and "order" should be conveyed in the canonical definitions of "absence" and "information" respectively. 21:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)