A person contemplating the random 'plumbs the depths' of the Absolute. An/any Absolute is maximal, never partial, particularly defined; not generally described. How many Absolutes might there be? Is an Absolute that is maximal, never partial, capable of co-existence with a maximal Absolute other than itself? In any run of the ULA you may find that characters (English letters, numbers, some punctuation) do indeed repeat such as in this: 


The Universal Library Algorithm (ULA) uses a random generator, but the algorithm/script is typical of such generators in that the generation relies on a seed to begin. Would that seed create or exhibit or mirror disordered hyperuniformity? Can you find maximal disorder in the Absolute? 

We can see that some characters are repeated in that ULA sequence above, but are they repeated because the seed is incapable of avoiding a repeat or because it is coincident? Does the existence of a seed deny pure coincidence by definition? Is that coincident duplication (as-in) a duplicate-as-defined by the seed's inherent quality or merely a repetition by happenstance despite the seed's inherent quality? Typical random-generating algorithms are often labeled pseudo-random because of the possible inherent quality that the seed itself prevents pure (or true?) randomness. Does something that kicks off randomness infuse or deliver something of itself to that which is random? Perhaps the repetition-or-duplication is relevant to the particulars of the particular definition of Absolute? Or rather, each Absolute. Just how many Absolutes might there be? If we have one Absolute that is maximally disordered (a term that must also be particularly defined), as written in another blog post about Evil, would that Absolute also be Absolute particularly for something else? If an Absolute must be particularly defined, not general, then even a particular Absolute could be repeated if the particular itself is not repeated-or-duplicated (and therefore be an Absolute of a different particular, not the same Absolute of course). So, if IFEOMOYRJLVEPFAFEN.UMGBMCI is maximally disordered and defined with particular component x, then the same maximally disordered IFEOMOYRJLVEPFAFEN.UMGBMCI defined with particular y is the same replicated disorder but an Absolute in each itself.

How could an Absolute be maximal if it did not contain all? Is all a necessary or inherent component of the definition of maximal?

If we can particularly define an Absolute that is maximal, never partial, and then another different particular, we contemplate many. That many is context, and context is the key to knowing if an iteration of the algorithm is true. We can substitute random English letters with fruit or planets or take one of every thing we can think of, and tell the algorithm that is the set from which it can pick. A test of our understanding (or perhaps depth) of randomness might be to tell the algorithm that the set (of any length) it may pick from contains only the uppercase A. For example, the set might be AAAAAAAAAAAAA. The algorithm that runs from such a set will pick a letter A and then a letter A followed by letter A until the run is complete. It picked which of the letters (pseudo-)randomly, which might then force the relevancy and context as our bailiwick. Continued testing of our depth of randomness (meaning our idea of it, our understanding and experience with it, what we can glean from and discover from such, etc) would be discovering relevancy and context from what we find in the run. What if the set were a single A. Can such a limitation as that be random if our context is to test our depth of understanding? Is the choice of only one letter capable of being randomly chosen, and does it still contain the possibility of Absolute? Again, do we infuse our self by limiting the set? We might by the way of Free Will. We contemplate the random to plumb the depth of the Absolute. We might find our self infused (read: present) if the particular definition of the Absolute includes us. Can we include our self as a particular?

Let's discover what we might find in such a run as AAAAAAAAAAAAA.

We find an Absolute if particularly defined as was Evil in a prior blog post. To review, if Evil is randomness exhibited without bounds, and in every pure random set there is always one order, then Evil prevents itself (remember or know that Absolutes are themselves and act or initiate from itself). Nothing is the opposite of Evil (Nothing with the big N, not just nothing), and Nothing is also an Absolute defined particularly as randomness relevant to itself. What about Free Will? Is that an Absolute or exhibit of that? What would be its definition? Could it be defined as randomly relevant? What makes something relevant, or rather, what is the intrinsic quality that founds relevancy? If we accept that we can be included or infused within any Absolute so long as the particular includes us, but also remembering that Absolutes are themselves and act or initiate from itself, then yes, we exhibit the Absolute Free Will. We are included/we included our self. Free Will is an exhibit of our self because what we exhibit, even if maximally random (which intrinsically contains one order, always), is relevant.

What is the opposite of Free Will? Nothing. Every opposite of Absolute is Nothing, that randomness relevant to itself. Additionally, the opposites (whatever)-Absolute and Nothing are not opposing/oppositional. They are simply not the Other.

If then, random and order opposites? Or not the Other?

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian