[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield

How can the 1 in the binary system be used both for the winner and the loser? The binary triads you mentioned seem to make more sense of things with many more possibilities. This can be the same as physically locating something with 3d coordinates.

Sometimes I find it difficult to exactly say what needs to be said, Scott, and my words may be crude. In the binary system a winner would for instance be described as 100111, and the loser as 100100. I mainly tried to say that the binary language makes use of 1s for both concepts. Winner and loser are complex statements in the binary language, while 1 and 0 are almost simply and naturally expressed as such in the decimal system.

In the binary system, the specific appointment of 1 is almost impossible to give, but in the decimal system there is a natural gravitation to it being the top or unification. You may find it interesting that some native peoples, such as the Piraha tribe of Amazonian Indians in Brazil, only count from one to three. In their language three is the same word as many. To simply explain their ideas of numbers, they use one for one person, two for two people, and three describes three or more people. These humans do not have to count any further because their base for everything is described in this framework of numerals. Most interestingly is that their number 1 is not an exact number 1 as we know it from the decimal system. Their 1 is more like the 1 from the binary system, as if a single person can never be seen as a single entity, for a single person cannot procreate and keep on living forever (and is therefore limited to ultimately only be an aspect of the group).

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield

I used the tripod as an example of the three theory. The object at the top is really made out of 3 components. If you look at a tripod from different angles, at certain angles, one leg is hidden by another leg. This can be any leg hidden by any other leg. This is tri-interconnectivity, by having two then you can always find the 3rd if it is unknown. This is similar to Pythagoren theorem, which looks as if it could be derived from the three theory.

I agree. I mainly wanted to make clear that a tripod may not contain enough evidence to deliver a clear statement about the whole, yet it does give important insights. Can I ask you: would you describe your three theory as an insightful theory or as an fully explanatory theory?

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield

Can you give me some examples of parts of the universe that are self-based onto themselves in your theory. How does this work? A unified field theory would require all fields to be united into a single field, but a TOE would not have to include a unified field theory. The TOE could explain why everything is unified, it may even be unified because it is not unified.

This may be the most important question you are asking me, Scott. I hope I can give an answer short enough to remain fresh, but deep enough to cover all territory.

The word came about when Nobody and I (we have very similar ideas, but we differ in some respects) were talking about the word 'absolute.' It turned out he was using the word absolute differently than I used it, and so I came to use the word self-based instead. The word yellow, for instance, is based/contained within the larger idea of colors, and not on, say, mathematics or electricity. Yellow is therefore not absolute (in that it cannot be used everywhere), but is absolutely a part of colors (based within this larger concept, having certain characteristics of that group, and totally real as such).

I will use religion as the example to show further distinctions of self-based ideas, because it is most obvious. While it is immediately clear that atheism cannot be placed in the same context as the belief in a god or gods, the distinction between the latter two is more complex. I have communicated with people who had no problem seeing one god and many gods as aspects of one and the same picture, but these people had made up their minds that there is only one god (and thus rejected the idea of independent multiple gods). So this is very basic for understanding the aspect of self-based, Scott. If you have made up your mind about religion in a certain way, then that is a self-based view from which you will view all other aspects. It is only natural to then also behave accordingly to your own ideas, and change your behavior if you change your ideas. To remain neutral, and see all three variations for what they are is very important to understanding the pyramid theory. I claim that no god and a god are as distinct and incompatible with each other as one god and multiple gods. Only after taking in certain positions do we adjust the other aspects to incorporate them into our view.

The most difficult part is possibly to understand the word abstract correctly. In the pyramid theory it is the top, and it contains aspects of unification, but it does not really 'exists.' The word nation, for instance, is obviously a word for something that exists, but in nature it really does not exist. It is a territory that is maintained by human beings. Yet some people are able to make their nation be the most important aspect to life there is: people are willing to die for their nation. It has become a self-based aspect of their life.

In nature there are lands and mountains and seas, but no nations. The largest entity to encompass all is earth. Earth is 'our' largest entity, and it is not an abstract; it is a reality. Yet for some people, the abstract nation can supersede the earth. Similarly, the abstract ideas of god or gods are placed by many on a higher plane than life. The former are abstracts, the latter is real. The only way for an abstract to become larger than life is if it has a self-based character. If religion were squarely based on life, we would not murder each other for a religion.

I can give you more examples of self-based, but it does not matter. If you belief that everything is unifiable then you will always regard the universe as such. If you belief that the universe is not unified, then you will always see it that way. Both positions are real positions, and they cannot be unified (which is my second argument why unification does not exist). Ultimately, there are two positions to anything that are not unifiable. Ergo, they are self-based.