It can, of course, be considered a concept (the concept of nothing), but it truly is the lack of all concepts; as concepts are 'things', and have value, and nothing is a lack of value. What is truly being imagined, when nothing is imagined, is the concept of a lack of all things, including concepts. So, like many concepts explored on this Wiki, models (specifically the concept of nothing) are required to explore nothing.
Different Forms of Nothing
Nothing is a lack of all things, but the form of nothing in question can vary based on the definition of what a 'thing' is. This results in the existence of numerous forms of 'nothing', each based on a separate definition of what a 'thing' is. While all of these different forms of nothing will be listed in this section, the rest of the page will use 'Absolute Nothing' (the final form mentioned) as the standard form of nothing unless stated otherwise.
Emptiness is the form of nothing which is most closely accessible to humans within the real world. Emptiness simply refers to a lack of value on the basis of a given metric. When analyzing the contents of cardboard boxes and it is found that in one box there are no objects, the box can be considered empty. Despite this, there are still many varying forms of emptiness based off of the metric being considered, as some metrics require something to be of less value to be considered 'empty' compared to others. For example, while the cardboard box is empty of perceived contents, it is not empty of particles due to the presence of air molecules. Thus, different types of emptiness exist.
Physical Emptiness: A lack of all physical things which exist within our universe. This refers specifically to physical objects which can be detected through scientific methods, such as matter, energy, and other equivalents. As such, a perfect vacuum is the only known empty thing within our universe.
Real Emptiness: A lack of reality itself. While a perfect vacuum may be void of all physical components, it is still part of reality. It still takes up space within our universe. To be truly empty, by this definition, something must not contain any form of spacetime at all, making the Interdimensional Void a perfect example. Those who exist within the Interdimensional Void would view such a realm as a part of reality, and as such a more empty void, such as The Outside, would be empty from their perspective. Those within The Outside would then view Beyond as empty, and so on.
Numerical Emptiness: A number that quantifies no objects, no elements in a set, the number of objects in the empty set. Since adding no elements to some set does not change the set, numerical emptiness when considered an element of a number system that does not consist of just cardinals such as the ring of integers, field of real numbers, or any given hypercomplex number system, is taken to be an additive identity of the system (generally the additive identity). Numerical emptiness is most commonly known as Zero, notated as '0'.
Set-Theoretical Emptiness: A lack of any and all contents within a set-theoretic object. Many objects, including some that humans may not be able to comprehend, can be elements of sets or set-like objects such as proper classes. Thus, set-theoretical emptiness is a lack of all such objects, the contents of the empty set. This is the most 'empty' form of emptiness, as any part of a void can be considered an object within a set, as can 0 and all other numerically empty numbers. Note that an empty set is itself not emptiness by this definition, but rather it is the contents of such a set that is emptiness.
Oblivion is a form of nothing which, unlike other forms of nothing, has no lack of anything real whatsoever, but rather a lack of perception. This form of nothing is also accessible to humans though there are no provable instances of this in real life. All of reality is seen and interpreted by our own minds, and reality itself is not what truly exists but rather what we perceive to exist. (Known as a Phaneron.) Therefore, a lack of all perception, all sense, a completely empty Phaneron, is a very powerful form of nothing. It is the lack of all reality, from a human perspective. If the theory that sentient beings experience nothing after death (not even to say that they experience existing within nothing, but rather they do not experience anything at all and cease to exist, think and comprehend) is true, then Oblivion would be what sentient beings experience after death.
It is possible to experience 'Partial Oblivion', where you experience the sensation of experiencing nothing, but this is not true Oblivion and you are still capable of experiencing, perceiving and comprehending, while true Oblivion is the lack of all experience, perception and comprehension.
Nonexistence refers to a realm which is beyond all of existence, and is so foreign to all within existence that none of its concepts can be fathomed and thus it is perceived as being pure nothingness. Definitions of what is within 'existence' vary, as some believe only our own Universe is existence, while others believe that larger structures such as the Omniverse, The Barrel or The Barrelplex are all of existence. Regardless of what is considered to be existence, it is all seen from the perspective of humans, and thus some things may be so far beyond human comprehension or simply so different from reality within our own universe that we perceive it to be something that cannot, or does not, exist. To this extent, Nonexistence is just as much a real realm as existence, it is simply so far removed from human comprehension that from our perspective, it does not exist. Should a human experience Nonexistence, they would be in a realm they could not comprehend to any extent, as every detail was beyond the abilities of the human mind to understand. This would mean they would not be able to experience any fraction of the world around them, and would experience something far more akin to absolute nothingness than mere emptiness or even oblivion, as oblivion is simply the human consciousness misleading them due to the lack of existence in their surroundings, while within nonexistence this lack of existence is very real.
Nihil (Latin for nothing) is incredibly similar to absolute nothingness itself, however instead of being a lack of everything regardless of the definition of everything, the extent to which Nihil is a lack of everything depends on the definition of everything, different interpretations of what 'everything' is will result in different forms of Nihil. If our universe is truly all there is, and there is nothing else that is actually real, then a lack of our universe would be Nihil. But, by defining 'everything' as something else, Nihil would be a far more 'empty' form of nothing. There are four main definitions of 'everything' which produce four different forms of Nihil.
Empirical Nihil: A complete lack of anything that can be known to exist. Those who are skeptical of considering something real if it cannot be proven to exist (such as the Multiverse) will consider objects that cannot be proven to exist to be unreal, and thus such an object would be a complete absence of everything and all things; it would be Nihil. Even those who are willing to accept the idea of the Multiverse would accept that it is in complete absence of proof, a quality of reality not shared with, say, an apple, which can be proven to exist. The majority of articles and concepts of the Wiki can be considered to be a form of Empirical Nihil.
Informational Nihil: A complete lack of information of any form. As information forms almost all things that are discussed and, debatably, can be discussed, a lack of information would be considered a lack of everything; it would be a Nihil. Of course, there are many ways to prove not all things require information, as models which do have informational value can be used to model things which do not have informational value. (For example, I am actually describing a model of Informational Nihil right now, as it is impossible to convey the actual concept.) Regardless, due to the extent to which information is present in almost anything, a complete lack of all forms of information is a very powerful form of Nihil. Everything outside the Schemafield can be considered a form of Informational Nihil.
Conceptual Nihil: A complete lack of all concepts of any form. All things, even those without information, can be considered concepts, but due to the fact that concepts exist, a lack of concepts can be imagined. (Using models in the form of concepts of course.) Though concepts are still largely considered to form everything and many consider a lack of concepts impossible, and thus such a lack of concepts would be a Nihil. This form of Nihil is far more broad than Informational Nihil due simply to how broad the concept of 'concepts' are. A complete lack of concepts would represent a complete lack of the tools used to imagine anything at all. This is the form of nothing closest to absolute nothing listed on this page.
Boxial Nihil: A complete lack of all things within The Box. The Box contains everything, regardless of anything that prevents it from doing so. As such, 'being in the Box' can be considered a valid definition of 'everything'. As such, the lack of being contained by the Box would be a Nihil, as everything is within the Box. Those who believe there to be truly nothing beyond the Box would consider Boxial Nihil to be equal to Absolute Nothing as there are no other possible definitions of 'everything' which could provide a greater form of nothing than being contained by the Box.
The most basic, and yet most powerful, form of nothing. This is the form of nothing which the rest of the page will use as the standard form of nothing unless stated otherwise. Absolute Nothing is similar to Nihil, however while what exactly Nihil is a lack of will vary based on how 'everything' is defined, Absolute Nothing is a lack of everything for any definition of everything. It is the complete lack of, and absence of, anything, in any way. Be it a physical thing, a hypothetical thing, a mathematical principle, a logical constant, a piece of information, a concept, anything. It is the lack of all things. Even things which are considered 'nothing' by the criteria above, as well as harsher criteria. Even by a metric which categorizes something that is not even a concept as a 'thing', that which could be considered nothing by such a metric would still not be absolute nothing. It does not matter how broad the concept of 'everything' or 'anything' is, Absolute Nothing is still a lack of it. Just like The Box is the container of everything regardless how broad everything is, nothing is a lack of everything regardless of how broad everything is.
The size and capacity of nothing is very obvious: nothing. It has no size. It has no capacity to contain anything for it is nothing. Just as no information can be given about nothing, nothing can be said about its size and capacity due to the fact that it has none. However, certain forms of nothing besides the standard form of nothing may not be considered to be true nothing when judging by the requirements of other nothings, and as such in relation to these other forms of nothing, their size (or lack-thereof) can be measured. This can allow us to see just how empty these forms of nothing are in comparison to each-other.
This section will use the previously established alternatives to nothing, but these terms being assessed are still not truly nothing, with the exception of absolute nothing.
Emptiness can often be considered very full. For example, an empty cardboard box still contains air molecules, and an empty vacuum is still part of the fabric of reality. Of course, voids which are far more empty such as The Outside and Beyond are considered such a challenge to traverse that even the most powerful organizations in the Omniverse struggle to do so. Furthermore, all things within even the Transcendentem Continuum follow the laws of mathematics, and an object more empty than the empty set would disobey these laws and thus would not be found anywhere within the Transcendentem Continuum as well as countless larger -verses. Thus, the contents of the empty set is the emptiest thing within all of these -verses. So the 'emptiness' of emptiness can vary massively, but as the strongest form of emptiness currently known is set theoretical emptiness it can be assumed that in its most 'empty' form, emptiness is only as close to nothing as things within a hypothetical 'Mathsverse' which contains all things following the laws of mathematics can get. Things beyond the Mathsverse could be far emptier and with less size and/or capacity than emptiness.
Oblivion, from the perspective of objective reality, is not close to nothingness at all. It has just as much size and capacity as all normal things, and from an objective standpoint it is normal. But from the subjective interpretations of human existence, Oblivion represents absolute nothing. It is as without size and capacity as anything within human interpretation can be, and thus, the only way to have less size and/or capacity is to be completely beyond human comprehension. The Transcendentem Continuum, while almost entirely beyond human comprehension, still has small details a human could properly comprehend, as does a hypothetical 'Mathsverse'. It is highly likely, however, that beyond The Barrelplex there is absolutely nothing a human could comprehend, and thus, things beyond the Barrelplex could have less size and/or capacity than Oblivion.
Nonexistence is a logical continuation from the lack of size and capacity found within Emptiness and Oblivion. Nonexistence is so alien to human perception that it is void of all things we can comprehend, and thus it is completely absent of all things we can know exist. This would easily allow it to hold less size and capacity than Oblivion, as Oblivion relies on human perception, while Nonexistence is completely beyond it. This means that Nonexistence likely exists directly beyond the Barrelplex and is equivalent to Metempiric Space. Thus, something which held less size or capacity than Nonexistence must exist beyond all Altarcae as well as the space beyond all Altarcae, in the realm of large Selfverses.
Nihil is far closer to absolute nothing than all other forms of nothing, as it is a complete lack of all that exists. Previous forms of nothing can at least be considered to exist, but Nihil cannot. Thus, its size and capacity do not exist either. But we can use size and capacity as a model of a grander concept which we cannot comprehend to gain an answer regardless. Due to the fact that what constitutes as 'everything' is debatable, so too is the lack of size and capacity found within Nihil. The most lenient interpretations demand something must be proven to exist, and things which are not proven to exist can still hold substantial size and containment. Stricter definitions, however, allow anything formed from information or even being a mere concept to exist. This would mean that objects such as the Abfield must exist to facilitate things with less size or capacity than Nihil, and many of these structures would be even larger than Abfield. While Abfield can contain things beyond the confines of information, some definitions of 'everything' are far more encompassing and so even the contents of Abfield would not be of less size than Nihil. The most broad known form of Nihil is that it is a lack of all which is contained within The Box, which would mean structures beyond the Box must exist to hold less size or capacity than Nihil, which is highly debatable.
Absolute nothing, or just 'nothing' as it is referred to elsewhere in this article, has no size or containment by any definition. It is a lack of all things, and will remain as such regardless of any and all models used. Nothing can be said about its size or how much it contains other than that there is none.
Nothing VS The Box
Due to how utterly powerful the complete lack of all things within nothing seems, it is natural to wonder if nothing could disprove the notion that The Box contained everything via not being contained by the Box, or even perhaps that it could disprove the notion that the Box is the largest thing by itself being larger than the Box. There are a number of arguments both for and against the idea of nothing beating the Box.
Lesser Forms of Nothing
Before discussing the arguments it is important to note that only absolute nothing could plausibly 'beat' the Box, the four lesser forms of nothing (Emptiness, Oblivion, Nonexistence and Nihil) are fully contained and themselves smaller than the Box. As shown above in the Size/Capacity section, these forms of nothing all fit into the hierarchy of -verses which is fully contained within the Box. The rest of this section will focus exclusively on absolute nothing.
Due to the fact that term 'nothing' in Cosmology refers to the same concept as the term 'nothing' in the English language, it is argued that the fact that "Nothing is beyond the Box" along with the fact that "Nothing is larger than the Box" guarantees that nothing does, in fact, surpass the Box, due to the fact that the English language term is the same as the Cosmological term. Along this line of thinking, this would also mean that nothing is beyond all other unsurpassable things, such as Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence.
This argument is widely considered to be completely false. The Box contains everything and is not restricted by anything, including language. The properties of language simply do not apply to its entirety, and it cannot be properly described by language. Thus, "nothing is beyond the Box" is simply a human simplification of the true principle, which cannot be properly described in language. This ensures the argument is invalid due to the principle that even if you call a sheep's tail a 'leg', the sheep still has only four legs, as calling its tail a leg does not actually make it a leg. As such, just because we simplify the Box's magnitude of containment to "Nothing is beyond the Box" does not make that fact completely true, and as such nothing does not automatically surpass it, making the Linguistical Argument invalid.
It is known that the core principle of the Box is that it contains everything, but due to the fact that nothing is the lack of everything, it could be argued that nothing is not in fact a part of 'everything' and thus, the Box would not contain it as it only contains everything, not a lack of everything. The first counter-argument is that this argument is based off of language which, as previously mentioned, cannot truly represent concepts such as the Box and nothing. The counter-argument to this counter-argument is that the relationship between 'everything' and 'nothing' is still retained even when going beyond the boundaries of language, and they are core parts of the two definitions, rather than ideas extrapolated from the definitions. (Such as "nothing is beyond the Box.")
The second counter-argument is that the definition of 'everything' used for the Box is so broad that it includes nothing, however this is questionable as nothing is the lack of all things, regardless of how broad, which would include the definition of 'everything' included within the Box's definition. This can also be refuted however as it could be argued that the Box is so far beyond our own comprehension that in reality 'everything' is simply a word used to incorrectly describe a concept which encompasses both 'everything' and 'nothing'.
It can be argued that all things in Cosmology have opposites, including units of measurement. If the complete Box is the largest unit of measurement as all things are part of the Box, then it would follow that the polar opposite unit of measurement would be something so small that everything in the Box can be broken down into a whole number of these units, often known as a 'Sergepoint'. Because of this, everything within the Box contain one or more Sergepoints. But since nothing is the lack of all things, it would also be the lack of all Sergepoints, with a value of 0, and all things in the Box contain one or more Sergepoints. This would imply that nothing is not within the Box and, as such, beyond it.
The counter-argument is that there is no reason for polarity to automatically exist at all levels, and the Box is supposed to be free of all restraints, which would include polarity and, as such, would have no minimal opposite. This is known as a Monopolar system, while a system with both the Box and Sergepoints would be a Dipolar system.
The Box is considered so difficult to beat because it is a maximal container, meaning it contains the largest possible amount of things of any container, specifically all things. To do this, it ignores literally anything that would prevent it from doing so and contains everything anyway, even if it is completely illogical to do so. This would mean that the Box would override any and all methods with which nothing 'beats' in, no matter how little sense it makes. Thus, any argument that nothing beats the Box is automatically invalid.
The counter-argument is that because the Box is the maximal container, it will contain all things, but nothing isn't a thing, and is instead a lack of all things, and as such there is literally nothing to contain. To massively simplify the issue into human terms, the Box does not fail to contain nothing, it just doesn't try to contain it in the first place. This is heavily related to the Technical Argument, explained above.
The Law of Box Equivalency states that all structures which contain everything in an equal way to the Box will ultimately be a different viewpoint of the same top-level structure, meaning any and all structures containing an equal amount of 'things' as the Box does are in fact the Box, from a different point of view. As nothing is a lack of all things and has no properties or attributes other than being a lack of all things, adding nothing to the Box would not increase the size of the Box nor the quantity of things it contains, thus making the union of The Box and nothing Box-equivalent. And, as stated above, all Box-equivalent structures are in fact the Box, meaning the Box is a structure which contains nothing.
The counter-argument states that because the Law of Box Equivalency was based on the assumption that all things are in the Box, the Equivalence Argument would be a circular fallacy. If nothing being beyond the Box would disprove the Law of Box Equivalency, as it relies on all things being within the Box to be true, then the Law of Box Equivalency may not be capable of justifying nothing being within the Box as it relies on nothing already being within the Box to be true.
Nothing VS Cosmic Entities
Many Cosmic Entities of varying levels of power exist within The Box and many of them have abilities which could give them power over nothing. For example, the form of emptiness found within a cardboard box can be achieved by a creature which can manipulate air molecules. The state of 'partial oblivion' experienced by humans when they believe they are experiencing true Oblivion can be forcefully brought upon a sentient being by a cosmic entity with mental manipulation. As such, it is understandable to question whether nothing can be manipulated by cosmic entities and, if so, how powerful the cosmic entities would have to be to do so.
Lesser Forms of Nothing
The four lesser forms of absolute nothing discussed previously in the article can certainly be manipulated by cosmic entities and it is easy to tell what the extent of their power must be. The extent to which they lack size is simply inverted. For example, The Outside is known to have less size than anything within the Omniverse, so it is known that to manipulate The Outside, power beyond that within the Omniverse is required. (Specifically, Omnipotence^2 in The Omnipotence Hierarchy.) This can be applied to all forms of pseudo-nothing.
Emptiness requires different levels to manipulate based on the parameter, but the most powerful form is set-theoretical emptiness, which is the most empty thing that follows the laws of mathematics. Thus, complete control over the laws of mathematics is required to manipulate set-theoretical emptiness. It is not known what level on The Omnipotence Hierarchy must be reached to gain this power, but it is known that this level is far higher than Omnipotence^100,000 and far lower than Omnipotence^Infinity.
Oblivion requires complete power over human interpretation of reality, which may seem easy, but illusions of Oblivion are just that: illusions. The ability to manipulate true Oblivion requires power over not just the human mind but the sheer concept of Consciousness, although this concept is still part of our local Altarca and so it is likely that such a feat would be capable with at least Omnipotence^Infinity, if not lower levels.
Nonexistence is equivalent to Metempiric Space, and it is known that with any level below Omnipotence^Infinity, Metempiric Space is inaccessible. With Omnipotence^Infinity, Metempiric Space can be accessed, but not manipulated. (As shown by Ignotum, who can exist within Metempiric Space but can only manipulate Altarcae.) The ability to manipulate Metempiric Space is achieved only by entities as powerful as The Rulebreaker, who transcend The Omnipotence Hierarchy completely. For the sake of ease, this level can be considered "Omnipotence^Infinity+1".
Nihil is the lack of all existence and so manipulation of Nihil requires one order of power more than the power needed to manipulate all of existence. Varying structures exist to contain 'everything' under certain definitions, such as the Schemafield, but the largest is The Box, and complete manipulation of The Box requires True Omnipotence. Thus, it could be argued that manipulation of Nihil requires power beyond True Omnipotence but it could also be argued that True Omnipotence can already manipulate Nihil and, furthermore, Boxial Nihil is an outlier as it may be equivalent to absolute nothing. As such, the level is likely equivalent to another extremely encompassing definition of 'existence' which would require power far beyond The Omnipotence Hierarchy to manipulate, but not quite to the extent of True Omnipotence.
Absolute Nothing VS True Omnipotence
Absolute Nothing is the lack of all things, and for any level of power, even those beyond The Omnipotence Hierarchy, there is a complementary existence and as such a complementary pseudo-nothing itself inferior to absolute nothing. As such, it can be considered that absolute nothing is beyond all levels of power. However, True Omnipotence is also beyond all levels of power, including itself. Furthermore, it is the Omnipotence counterpart to The Box, which can often be considered to beat nothing. As such, True Omnipotence would logically be able to manipulate it. However, The Box is also sometimes considered to not contain nothing, which would imply True Omnipotence would not allow entities to manipulate absolute nothing.
The arguments for and against nothing beating True Omnipotence are largely the same as those for the Box:
- The phrase "True Omnipotence has no limits" means nothing is a limit, thus nothing beats True Omnipotence.
- True Omnipotence has maximal ability, thus it must be able to manipulate nothing.
- True Omnipotence can manipulate everything, but nothing is not part of everything, thus nothing is beyond True Omnipotence.
The counter-points for these arguments are also largely the same. As such, the answer to whether or not True Omnipotence is able to manipulate Absolute Nothing is the same as the answer to whether or not The Box is able to contain Absolute Nothing.
Absolute Nothing VS Author Authority
Another power often seen as comparable and even sometimes superior to True Omnipotence is Author Authority, the power of an author to alter their work. As the concept of True Omnipotence and The Box were written by authors, it could be argued that Author Authority surpasses even those, and as such even if nothing is beyond the power of True Omnipotence (which is highly debatable), would it be able to surpass Author Authority? There are arguments both for and against nothing defeating Author Authority.
Maps VS Territories (Argument for)
One answer could simply be that just as authors created True Omnipotence, they created the concept of nothing, and therefore, author authority can easily manipulate nothing as simply as altering this article to contain different information. However, this is debatable, as it could be argued that this article is a 'map' rather than a 'territory'. A territory refers to a Cosmological object or lack of object which exists, or doesn't exist, or anything in between, but retains the value of being the Cosmological object itself. A map refers to a description or interpretation of a Cosmological object. To use the Box as an example, a fractal that contains everything and ignores anything that prevents it from doing so is a territory, while an article about a Cosmological structure known as The Box governed by Aspect Lords and The True God is a map. Following this logic, it could be considered that nothing is a territory which authors did not at all create, and predates the concept of authors and is a lack of such, and the concept we have defined as well as the article detailing it are maps. As such, altering the article or even altering the concept would not be manipulating the territory but rather manipulating the map to fit a different territory. As such, even those with author authority are not capable of manipulating nothing. The counter-argument would be that author authority often refers to fictional entities given the power of the author by the author, and as such are part of the territory. Thus, the actual author creates maps for both an entity with author authority and nothing, so as such the territory of this entity would in fact hold the power to manipulate the territory of nothing, just as the author can manipulate the map of nothing.
The Law of Cosmological Subjectivity (Argument Against)
The Law of Cosmological Subjectivity states that the authors of specific Cosmologies have the ability to add or remove anything they want from their Cosmology, and nothing has to exist within their Cosmology which they do not wish to exist there, including nothing. This would mean authors were in fact able to manipulate nothing as they would be able to remove it from their Cosmology.
The counter-argument to this is similar to the 'Technical Argument' used to explain why nothing may be superior to the Box. Nothing is universal across all Cosmologies as all Cosmologies which have things must have a lack of things; nothing. Any Cosmology which has any 'things' must have nothing, and the only Cosmologies which don't have things are ones which have nothing, meaning they still contain 'nothing'. Thus, despite the law of Cosmological subjectivity, it can be argued that Author Authority is in fact incapable of manipulating nothing in spite of this law.
Absolute Nothing VS Transfictional Entities
The final power often cited as similar to if not superior to True Omnipotence and Author Authority is Transfictionality; the ability to go beyond the laws of fiction and affect reality while still being fictional. (To put it another way, the ability to breach the Great Barrier.) Logically, since author authority is not capable of doing this as one cannot will their fictional character to affect real life, Transfictionality can be considered superior to author authority. Thus, if it is assumed nothing can be manipulated by author authority, it can also be manipulated by transfictional entities. But, if it is assumed author authority does not allow an entity to manipulate nothing, which is possible, then whether or not Transfictionality can do so is more debatable.
One argument in favor of Transfictionality is that as fictional things are 'not real', and thus have no 'real' value, by defining all of existence as 'real life', fictional things have a value equivalent to nothing within the real world, and as such, those which can affect the real world despite being fictional must have the ability to affect things as if they were not a lack of all things when in reality they truly were. This would be a clear example of being able to manipulate nothing. The counter-argument would be that this is not in fact absolute nothing,but rather Empirical Nihil, discussed above. Absolute nothing would be the absence of all things, including fictional things. As such, this does not guarantee that Transfictional entities would be able to manipulate absolute nothing.
This leaves the debate open-ended. There are multiple arguments for why Transfictionality would be able to manipulate absolute nothing, but it cannot be considered a fact that it can as there are also counter-arguments. However, these counter-arguments give no reason why Transfictionality would be unable to manipulate nothing, making the result almost entirely subjective and based simply on the preference of the interpreter.