Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAnfield  I had a thought about the binary system with the numbers 1 and 0, it could be with any number such as 4 and 7. Does this make the 1 and 0 less credible because it can be replaced with any other numbers or does it strengthen it, as it encompassed all the numbers and not just two? |
Lots of good questions, Scott, but how could someone with an excellent site on the number three not have good questions (and answers)?
In as far as the binary system being mentioned in similar fashion as
1 and 2, or
4 and 7 as you propose, I agree that these pairs of numbers could portray the binary system, but they do not cover the essence fully. The non-appointment that zero provides is not covered by any of the numbers in the other pairs. The binary system is based on
one that is and
another that isn't (but nevertheless is functional, if you get my drift). Anything that can get expressed in numbers, can get expressed in the binary system; it is just a cruder method in some ways.
If you wish, you can see a system of three in the binary system because the 111s in this system are not like the 1 in the decimal system. In the decimal system only 1 can be the winner, the others are not-1. In the binary system everything that is, is 1. So, 1 in the binary system is used both for the winner and the loser (albeit differently). In the abstract (and describing something in numbers is by definition abstract) two 1s are sufficient to describe all oppositional positions. The sum: 1 + 1 + 0 = 3 different positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAnfield I also think that the the ultimate structure must contain duality, but should not be limited by it. This ties in with the theory because if you look at a tripod standing, it has more strength than something with two stands, it needs the other stand to support it, but it may not be obvious or seen. |
I agree, but I use the tripod myself as an example to not be fooled by three when focusing on the overall aspect of things. One tripod is only one tripod, not three. Nevertheless, when looking for the aspects of it, then three becomes quite important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAnfield Even Professor Hawking has in recent years come to the conclusion that singularities don't exist. You have said that if a singularity cannot exist, then people would stop looking for a unified field. Why would they not try to find a unified field that doesn't include singularities, like mine? A unified field is something that unites everything, a theory of everything, that encompasses the whole universe and everything within it and even its own structure. |
If a unified theory only needs to explain everything within a single overall theory, then I can theoretically follow you there. But if a unified theory requires the fundamental aspects of our universe to be somehow unified, I must decline. If what you describe with
unified theory what you propose with the
three theory or I with the
pyramid theory then I have no problem stating it is a unified theory (because all is captured in one theory), but the reality is un-unified. According to my theory, various aspects of our universe are all self-based onto themselves, and that requires all being non-unified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAnfield Can you see that 1, 2 and 3 are the only trio of numbers next to one another for the whole numerical system? The three theory describes this as being that you can see the three items, but they are all separate and with these 3 numbers you can work out the rest of the primes from them. If you can see one of the three, one extreme, then you must be able to see another one, as it is the other extreme. |
Again, I can agree with you, but I have my own view on this. Maybe I can best say that I am able to see everything in threes, but only if I focus on crude distinctions. I have mentioned this elsewhere on this site before, but if we view everything as black and white, then I can see three distinctions. The central aspect is gray, one side is white, the other side is black. I can make a strong case for gray as being the essential stuff our universe is made out of (for instance, replace gray with the word energy). If energy is absent, we end up with black (lack of energy), if energy is all concentrated to the max, we end up with white. Yet we end up with three only when we focus on black and white — and not on anything colored. I consider black and white one side of the coin, the colors the other side. For the same reason, I am not into 1/0 much. It is too crude of a distinction, and should be replaced by 0/1/1, 0/0/1, 0/0/0, 1/1/1, 1/0/0, 1/1/0, 1/0/1, 0/1/0. Yes, it looks like each contains three numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAnfield You also mention that religion doesn't fit on the modern scientific framework, but the theory of everything must include religion as well, as it is apparent and acknowledged in the universe. The TOE should prove the existence of God, but what if, as religion claims, God made the universe and as the Bible says that he exists outside of time? Just as the reasoning that singularities cannot exist because they would break the rules of numerous theories, as the three theory states, 'extremely dense places do exist, but just not to the point where all the Laws of Nature collapse. This is because they are controlled by the Laws, not a controller of them'. |
Well said. My idea of everything is that everything is ultimately self-based. Science is based on self-proclaimed principles, religions are based on self-proclaimed principles. I cannot connect both groups in any other way than seeing that they both have the self-based aspect in common. Their precise principles are not the same, so a comparison or compromise is not even foolish, it should not be done (because in reality it cannot be done). Even when scientists must confess that they cannot explain it all (which fits my theory), then scientists can still not use the word god because it does not belong to the basic language of science. In science, finding the correct answer or finding that the answer is incorrect are both very satisfying answers. Of course one can write
woof in English, but that does not mean
woof is an English word. Woof belongs to a different language group.
I have nothing against the
god, gods, or no god principles — science simply isn't build to state anything about it, so no real answer should be expected from science. Is science limited? Yes (which is to be expected when everything is self-based onto its own principles)!
At the same time, each different religion has self-based principles also. God can indeed exist. But god could also have existed only prior to materialization (the event that killed god). Gods could have taken over the position that the singular god had before materialization occurred, but each god also finds itself self-based, unable to control all. And then there may be no god or gods at all. Whatever existed prior to the Big Bang does no longer exist, and we — in our quadrant of the universe — are currently the highest form available. Out of these options, I have no particular preference. Yet, I know for certain that they cannot all be true at the same time.
I have found an interesting link with the word 'hole' 'whole' and 'god.' Similarly, in ancient Scandinavian belief, the all-father hung himself, after which creation started to exist. In all ancient religions, a single god was considered an impossibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAnfield Your theory states that it is either 4 or 5 with a pyramid shape. What kind of things in nature and mathematics have structures like that? How does 4 or 5 explain phenomena in the universe and things like consciousness? |
Abstracts do not exist in nature. The last time I saw an 11 walk by I had a drink too many. A country is an abstract (which only exist if it can be enforced). A painting is an abstract (of reality or not), and must be created first. Much in our lives are abstracts, non-natural. A pyramid is an abstract, it does not exist as such, but it is the abstract shape to explain all positions found in overall deliveries.
The theory of four only contains the natural aspects (male, female, young, old) (North, East, South, West) (Electricity, Magnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force), and the fifth part is the abstract part (human being) (direction) (force). As you may notice, gravity is not part of the four forces. I consider it the other side of the coin of the four mentioned. Put an unrelated man, a woman, a boy and a girl together, and within a week you'll have some family dynamics going on (if they are not allowed to walk away). Family dynamics or gravity — different perspective, same idea of inherent dual properties.
As said, good questions (and answers), Scott. I like the way you gather your thoughts. I hope you like mine.