Presents a framework discussing mutual incompleteness in absolute void and infinite meta-regress, suggesting implications for existence.
This paper does not claim that absolute void (∅) and infinite meta-regress (M∞) form a perfectly demonstrable duality. No ultimate justification for such a claim can itself escape the regress problem. Instead, the present framework argues for a weaker but structurally significant thesis: Although both ∅ and M∞ contain fatal internal contradictions when taken independently, each partially alleviates the failure of the other. Their coexistence is therefore not grounded in absolute logical necessity, but in a mutual incompleteness that permits a stable ontological tension. Absolute void cannot express itself. Any attempt to define, identify, or refer to the void immediately generates a relation, thereby violating the very condition of absolute nothingness. Infinite meta-regress, by contrast, cannot terminate. Every axiom requires a meta-axiom for its justification, and every meta-axiom requires another higher-order justification without end. Existence therefore cannot achieve complete self-grounding. Taken independently, both structures collapse: ∅ collapses through inexpressibility. M∞ collapses through non-termination. However, these failures are not entirely isolated. Infinite meta-regress provides a mode through which the inexpressibility of the void can indirectly manifest, while the impossibility of closure within regress drives M∞ toward a state structurally analogous to voidness. This relation does not establish identity.It establishes coexistence through mutual mitigation. Thus, existence is not understood as a fully justified system, nor as a pure nothingness, but as the unresolved ontological tension between two irreducibly incomplete structures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeong Min Yeon (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: