Convention makes possible the limited and relative knowledge of the existence of the nature that we are and in which we exist as perfect/”imperfect” or paradox/absurd. In this perspective, convention is not denied, but represents the condition through which we can stabilize, define and communicate a part of existence. Language, science, mathematics, identity, forms and systems of reference are conventions through which nature is understood in a limited way, compared, comparatively or related to our absolute and relative limits in the same/different space/time. Infinity or the unlimited cannot be relative, just like Univocity or God.
Thus, convention provides benchmarks, forms and apparent limits of existence. Without conventions, the conventional knowledge of nature would become impossible. Nevertheless, nature cannot be completely reduced to our conventions, because existence is simultaneous and dialectical: simultaneity/dialectic. In this context, the conventional and the unconventional coexist as a simultaneity/dialectic of existence. At the same time, nature provides us with benchmarks, situations and systems of reference through the relative of its absolute. In their absence, we could neither compare nor relate, nor with their unlimitedness.
According to unconventional theory, existence cannot arise from nothing. The total absence of substance cannot generate substance. What is conventionally called “nothing” or “absolute zero” represents, rather, a convention of our limits of knowledge and reference. Even in modern physics, the vacuum is not an absolute nothing, because it contains fluctuations, fields and energy. Thus, what appears to be “nothing” may represent only an infinitely small quantity or a conventional limit toward which we tend without ever actually reaching it.
In this sense, zero, absolute nothingness and the absolute separations between existence and non-existence may be considered conventions of our conventional limits. Existence does not emerge from absolute non-existence, but through transformation, becoming and dialectic. The paradox of nature expresses precisely this becoming in which opposites do not “cancel each other out”, but coexist as unlimited, limited/extralimited, perfect/”imperfect”.
Within this logic, a clear distinction must be made between conventional infinity and infinity as unconventional unlimitedness. Classical infinity may be understood as a conventional limit of the unlimited. It remains dependent upon comparison, reference, measurement and systems of reference. Therefore, infinity becomes a large/small limited, a conventional projection of the non-infinite or the unlimited defined as infinite/extrainfinite or limited/extralimited.
The unlimited is not merely a greater infinity, but a simultaneity/dialectic that is ontologically and unconventionally different. It cannot be completely enclosed within a fixed, mathematical or metaphysical definition. In this context, conventional infinity appears as an approximation or limited projection of the unlimited.
The same distinction must be made between God or Uniqueness, unlimitedly great as perfection, and their gods or uniquenesses, limited as imperfection, compared, comparatively or related to limited or relative benchmarks, situations and systems of reference. Thus, every particular form becomes a conventional limitation of an unlimited perfection.
The paradox of nature represents the logical part of existence, where opposites do not “cancel each other out”, but produce perfect/”imperfect” transformation and becoming. The absurd appears when opposites cancel each other out, blocking becoming and transformation. In this context, paradox and absurd are themselves a simultaneity/dialectic of the existence of nature and of the human or humanoid condition.
Convention apparently stabilizes existence and allows the limited knowledge of nature. The unconventional, however, expresses the profound dialectic and simultaneity of existence, within and beyond the fixed, apparently constant conventions of language, science or mathematics. Science as perception and metaphor, mathematics and religion, astronomy, astrophysics or astrology, etc. The exclusion of religion from science is a great error, just as the exclusion of mathematics or physics from religion is. Thus, the existence of nature may be understood as a simultaneity/dialectic between the conventional and the unconventional, between the limited and the extralimited, between the perfect and the “imperfect”, between paradox and absurd, etc.