[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

I've tried in a number of messages to portray my position, but I admit things can get a bit batty and unclear. How you worded the question, "central in your view," pretty much explains it in that the central point of all matter is non-existent and this point carries throughout matter (or space) in motion, which renders time non-existent as well.

I agree that time holds precedence in that it determines reality as a rate of change. Without change there is no sense of reality, and because the absolute universe is unable to change I proclaim there is no reality to the universe. There is no starting or ending point to that which doesn't exist, and there is no need to figure anything out except to figure out how to just live with a quiet mind.

Your analogy of an abstract family and its members surrounds the heart of my point, but a family can be literally broken up into parts of what we then refer to as real members because that's what a family is. The universe on the other hand, from my standpoint, is abstract but cannot be literally broken up into particles or even waves because that would require literally separating one type of existence from another. It is an impossibility, again, because all absolute points of matter/space/time are non-existent as the prerequisite basis for any accurate measurement of matter, space or time. For instance, to precisely measure the distance between you and your monitor would require non-existent starting and ending points and a non-dimensional instrument to measure it. Any dimension would interfere with the accurate reading to an infinite degree because any dimension can be reduced infinitely. So the distance between yourself and your monitor must be abstract, because the absolute point carries or connects from you to the screen. And since non-dimensional points don't exist, you and the monitor don't exist to the absolute universe.

This leads to the proposal that the subconscious mind creates the raw materials that are shared by all sentient beings according to a strict set of decay laws that are programmed in the universal DNA, capable of both perfect and imperfect replication. This world being the result of imperfect replication/mutation over too long a time I would say.

Regarding Mr.Haselhurst, I think he's great, and his proposition of the "one" is his means of filling the gaps of most other theories. It is a way to explain the many within the one, and the one source for the many to function. Yet I have trouble with the claim that space can be both the source of waves and the wave medium. The way I understand waves and mediums, the medium always has to be differentiated from the waves, and if not it runs into an unsolvable problem for me.