[Fredrick]

I understand what you are trying to say, but the example that you deliver is the common example. I would like to see if you have an ultimate example in that unification exists on the ultimate level as well.

The example to counter your example would be the binary system. Each and every 1 in the binary system is a one, and though all ones may deliver different messages in different combinations, ultimately they can be seen as the same single 1, used over and over again.

However, the binary system is not based on a single member used over and over again, but on two different members that are used over and over again. Never will 1 be the same as 0, and even though their combination can be seen as a unified result since only together do they deliver the full binary language, their unification is not an ultimate unification because one member is different from the other member. Yes, they are both numbers, both no, they represent something that cannot be unified.

Even in the decimal system (0, 1, 2, 3, 4 etc) the same distinction exists in that - even when you can unify all natural numbers into one definition - the number zero would still fall outside this definition. Because of zero, unification is not possible in the binary nor in the decimal system.

As you know, in the definition of colors, black is often not referred to as a color since it is actually the absence of reflection that is called black. White is also a phenomenon in the color scheme that poses problems because it is the combination of colors that creates white. Just like zero with the natural numbers, black and colors make the phenomenon of colors a lot more interesting than that of a simply unified basis.