[N0B0DY]

Of course I'm interested in your work, Bob. Anyone would be foolish not to be because it puts things together very systematically well, but I'm never biased toward one viewpoint in its entirety preferring to extract a few pieces relevant to my own discoveries. There are many who endeavor to know the mind of god, or universal mind, and I think it necessary to know what the mind is first before extending it to universal proportions.

I don't shirk empirical and theoretical science, but there is a fine line between the two in that both can be misleading even when supportive of one another. If it wasn't for Einstein's accurate predictions, I don't think String Theory would have lasted as long as it has. People place alot of importance on math and observations, but over the years I've noticed that few are willing to express themselves as individuals - conform or be cast out, as it were.

The more I read your work, the more I see it running along the same track as my own train - no offence intended. When I pressed that the discrete nature of particles transforms, I noticed you mentioned something similar in your "Quantum Mind" Theory and the pressing is really unnecessary because the particles are no longer particles if converted to radiation. It only seemed misleading to me because when you use the backdrop screen for projections to be placed on, and state that electrons don't exist between jumps, some may conclude that the particles disappear entirely into the screen instead of being a part of the EM-conversion process.

The other premise of keeping things whole is based on my own interpretation of simplifying theoretical and empirical evidence, though sort of the consensual interpretation with a small twist. I have to disagree that EM comes from the interactions of matter, so as to avoid the "matter exists just because it's there." The SLAC experiments are repeatable and serve as a basis for matter creation, and the fact that antimatter isn't observed lasting in the universe but required for matter to exist shows that there is something wrong with preconceived notions of most models.

Based on the empirical evidence of what occurs when two high-energy photons collide, we can form a simple math that transcends theoretical physics. Primarily that 0/0=1; 0*0=0; and 1-1=0. The normal assumptions of wholeness render it 1/1=1; 1*1=1; and 1+0=1. We can see relatively easily that normal assumptions neglects antimatter, and only by equating non-existence with existence can it represent a creatio ex nihilo properly. We can have an a priori basis for universal time via photons, local time via matter, and no time as the substrate medium. I also propose that photons and photon holes (gravitons) are out-of-phase waves that are synonymous to an event horizon, to prevent literal concepts of material creation from entering the picture. The process is soley due to dividing photons/gravitons into differentiable quanta to create in-phase waves, similar I would think to separating light and darkness.

I agree things get fuzzy in the eV clouds, but correlating 3-d electrons to principal numbers is hard for me to swallow too. They can be rendered 3-d, 2-d, 1-d, and even 0-d, and size and energy can correspond to any quantum number, but when wanting to know the incremental effects leading to these associations it becomes extremely hard to accomplish. To revert to the mind, we can only be conscious of or observe particular quanta, similar to the visible-light spectrum within the greater spectrum, and it seems we can often fall prey to forcing nature to conform to our physical observations and mental capacity. Only a mind at zero has the capacity to record all differentiable phenomena like a storage space, extracting pertinent information for phenomena to persist to exist in a particular fashion.

I guess regardless of the nature of exterior forms, it always comes down to our interpretations of the Void. The orthogonal discontinuity of spacetime is where my mind is at, Bob. To get to the heart of the matter, as you said, "to integrate the Void as ONE," we have to conclude that all forms of matter consist of what the Void consists of, and then ultimately have to know what the Void consists of. I have concluded that the Void is non-existent and wave forms are incrementally recreated over abstract non-dimensional points when the Void is divided by itself. Observations, for instance, of a hand moving through space is rendered as particles recreated incrementally according to discrete energies. There is no literal motion involved because we have concluded that all motion must be part of the Void, and the Void can't very well move anywhere because it transcends time and space - spacetime being dependent upon speed, and the Void being so fast that it is already everywhere and nowhere in particular.

My apologies for going there, I know you said you prefer not to get into that, but from my experience First Philosophy always finds a way to sneak in.