[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat I did a search on pentaism on yahoo and found no hits. One of the first time that has happened to me. A search on google yielded a synopsis of a book entitled PROOF OF NOTHING THEORY OF EVERYTHING, by Fredrick Schermer. Is that you? I thought duality could explain everything. 0/1 or the binary code surely can represent everything, written or imagined. Also when I tried to go to your figures or links in the above post all I got was a faint image in the upper left hand corner.

Hi Pat and Austin,

Pentagon, dualism, mix the two together and you get pentaism. Actually, I googled it and got four replies (two were referring to this thread, though, so now we know how quickly google is updated). The third one was on my book ("The Proof of Nothing" - internet-version: "In Search of a Cyclops"), while the fourth was on Erotic Colour Prints of the Ming period. I haven't checked that one out yet!

And yes, the binary system can be used to deliver everything, as is possible with any system that is complete in itself. However, if you read my delivery in this thread, Pat, understanding duality is only the beginning to understanding the whole.

Indeed, the figures from the site can come up as somewhat warped if they were not opened up in full format. If you open up the window to full view then they come up fine. I'll have to sit and think about fixing this little piece of inconvenience. Thank you for letting me know.

And as always, Austin, you deliver perspectives that make sense on various levels. But I hope the two of you heard what I am asking. This post is both an outright challenge to those who want to undermine the scientific delivery given in Chapter 5 of my book as it is a cry for help; I am tired of others not getting the essence of it, finding the phenomenon of nothing unimportant in the large scheme, or approve of the idea without seeing the need to propagate the idea. The nature of the phenomenon of nothing makes it understandable that I get 'nothing' in return, but I have worked on getting the message out a real long time, and the work or the idea should have been recognized by now. Understandably as wel, it is difficult to create a strong bond around an issue in which nothing is a fundamental aspect.

And this may seem a weird action then, Austin, to 'challenge' your post in this thread in trying to make a 0 - 5 fit into a single larger picture. It is not that I see anything wrong with it, but your delivery is not complete in itself. As soon as we assign a singular meaning to a number, the rest will have to follow based on that assignment. And as such your delivery is fine and correct. Yet a different assignment is also possible using the exact same number.

Let me get to the point. One can, for instance, say that Time = 3, but one can also say that Time = 0 (or 1, 2, or 5). What I am trying to convey is that you delivered an overall experience that contains all the elements, but by wanting to complete the delivery within a specific framework, you did not assign all characteristics to the actual elements (of being versatile to some extent), in essence, preventing different frameworks to be delivered that are just as true. As an example, in Musical Chairs only one person can sit in a chair, but that does not make the chair that person's possession. To deliver how the chairs are taken in after the music stopped and before the music starts up again does not fully explain how Musical Chairs is played: the chairs are basically available to all, but in each round one player gets nothing. I realize this is just very small potatoes, but the difference between understanding the toe and not understanding the toe is actually as small as sitting in a chair and not possessing the chair. I hope you appreciate I want to fully see eye to eye on pentaism with you.