Proof that reduction is in light and not in light

The claim: Let us define: Light – any subject of the Creator that does not belong to Him in its essence, that is, it can be denied from Him without a contradictory contradiction.
Light – the substantia that the Jews call “Creator of the Universe”, through the veil of negations in which we know it, the subject, the bones.
World – a group of certain negations p that belong to the entity called “Creator” (this is the world after the reduction, before that it was an entity).

My meaning is that the world was initially part of the Creator, that is, there was no difference between the negations and the subject, it was the same thing, while the reduction is what the group of negations p called “world” became synthetically composed on the subject and not analytically, that is, it can be denied from the Creator without a contradiction.

And the evidence: The sun is a metaphor for light, its light is a metaphor for light. Therefore, since the sun is not on Earth, then neither are the bones, and since its light is present, then the light of the Creator is present. And how do I know this? There is a verse that says that the heavens declare the glory of God, therefore everything I see in the sky and liken to God is logically correct.

I liked the expression ‘contradictory contradiction’.
The problem is that the properties of something are not applicable, so I don't understand how they can fill an infinite or partial or any space.
Light is not the property of the sun. It rotates around it, but it exists for itself.
In short, we have not progressed.

For example: If we assume an object whose one of its properties is “being red”, then we can look at the predicate, that is, examine the ”being red” as standing on its own (which is a reduction). And we can, on the other hand, examine the predicate together. With the object (then this is what the predicate belongs to in the object, and this is what is not reduced). My claim is that the substantia “Creator” has a subject “created” (in the spirit of Kabbalah we can say that this is a group p of 10 predicates), when the emphasis is on the predicate, this is a reduction, and then there is no reference to the substantia (although the object is still the subject, just as there would be no reality of the color red when there is no object that bears it, at least not in the real world), when the emphasis is on what the predicate belongs to the subject, this is what is not reduced. That is, the distinction is epistemic. If we are talking about a "knowing entity," then the problem of "who looks at the subject of created things?" is also solved. Just as I can look at my subject and thereby logically isolate it, so too does the Creator.

I don't understand a word here. Being red is not a noun. So what does this have to do with reduction or non-reduction? The world is the red being of the Almighty? I don't understand these words.

If I am a red person (and I am the only red person in the world by some magical logical necessity) and I examine the predicate red by itself, then this is my epistemic separation between the predicate and the subject. My claim is that this separation is my reduction from red. Initially, I was faced with the idea of myself, and I deprived it of all its properties except “red”, I reduced myself from red. Now there seems to be a predicate called “creatures”, and I will argue that what the reduction is is the withdrawal of all properties in order to examine the predicate by itself. The predicate “creatures” means that one of the properties of the Creator is that He is the place of a world, and part of the characteristics of this property is “world”, when “it” is withdrawn, only the world remains for examination.