[Fredrick]

Lloyd,

I guess I should not be surprised about the force in your words, since I challenged you to come out with a more substantiated reply. Yet what I was hoping for was that you focused on the mathematical evidence I provide, not the circumstantial descriptions I created. The only parts to which I will reply is where you mention something about the circumstantial words I used about the mathematical information. Most of the other words you wrote were oppositional sounding words where I actually felt there was no opposition.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

My mathematical evidence — and I leave it available on this site for you to read in the next two weeks: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html — actually has a basis of six, though one of the six positions in this matrix must be given to the phenomenon of nothing (in numbers: zero). Three only has its place under very special circumstances, and mainly based on the incompleteness of duality to explain the whole (2 X 3 = 6).
Lloyd: [I leave this as the evidence of your faults of logic and math... The false phenomenon of nothing, is just a false phenomenon of your imagination... edited para...]

-reply F: This is me talking about circumstantial information after the mathematical evidence is delivered. From the mathematical evidence one can conclude only very few things, one of them being that there is by definition no unified delivery (except in the abstract). So, from that point on, after showing there is no unification, there is only circumstantial information that is only correct within their own context. I could have kept my mouth shut, or I can give this circumstantial information to try to give more clarity about the reality of our un-unified universe, but if you don't read it with un-unification in mind then you can't read it correctly (period). What I did is generalize information from this abstract state, but it cannot be other than muddy, not-precise, generalized thoughts about the whole. You as the reader need to understand where I am coming from with my words, which means you must apply the framework I provide, not your own framework. Otherwise it cannot ring true.

I believe this 4 X 3 = 12 format is explained by one of the four positions being the phenomenon of nothing.[This is really a joke, now isn't it?___Tell us the truth... edited para...]

-Reply F: Yes, this is really a joke if you don't look at these words from the direction from which they were spoken. But don't bother, Lloyd, because even then, these words are totally unimportant in what I hope is the actual crux of our conversation. What is important is the mathematical evidence itself first. If that is left untouched then none of my words have much value, Lloyd. I hope you will touch on the real mathematical stuff itself.

I hope this explains the six-position as found in the matrix, and the five-position of the pyramid.[No it does not... I edited out the worst...]

-Reply F: See above.

Boy, your mind sure works different than mine Fredrick. "Yet as an external objective experience it comes up as nothing___it ain't there."

I'd advise you to learn your science and metaphysics, a bit better before you think you can inform others, especially with such non-sense...

-Reply F: Please focus on the mathematical evidence. As said before, if you can show me I am wrong about the information itself, then I will let you know and even thank you for that. But right now you have not even touched the essence.

BTW, this is not your thread, so stop acting like it is... If you want your own thread, start it, and I and others will join it. This is Scott's thread...

-Reply F: If Scott comes back to this thread and tells me that, I will apologize to him, Lloyd. Otherwise, I consider it impolite of you to say that I am using more space than I should in this thread. All I have been doing is replying to others replying to me, and posing questions I think are of value in light of three (and yes, nothing and zero are important aspects in this respect); I don't see anything wrong with my posts in this thread.

The ball is in your court, Lloyd, and I cannot sum it up better for our conversation than this: "Correct me if I am wrong!"