[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by dipayankar A positron?? Probably, but when it is anilated by the electron woudnt we be seeing flashes???

I think the light that is observed is the flashes that you refer to, Dip. Without which the light is absorbed and stored.

I remember someone posting a reference to a strobe light, I think it was Robert, whereby at a certain rate the light appears continuous.

[dipayankar]

Probably at a certain wavelength as well. At frequencies more than visible light, we generally perceive flashes only..

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I think the light that is observed is the flashes that you refer to, Dip. Without which the light is absorbed and stored. I remember someone posting a reference to a strobe light, I think it was Robert, whereby at a certain rate the light appears continuous.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Tina Firstly Fredrick I think Thirdness is the fundamental structure and anything else is a thirdness position within that structure..thirdness subsets might be the word ...and the subsets are infinite...but always describable in the threeness dynamic (we are inventing new words) As for the on/off switch debate Protheory gets closer to the truth of a situation than the basic yes/no on/off right/wrong answers. The electron Flow locked into a circuit does not vanish as is implied by "no circuit flow/off" because electrons WOULD flow if they could and indeed are ready to flow when circuit is is restored by "ON Switch" when Electrons are no longer inhibited. Electron flow exists/does not exist is too black and white and in circuits we cannot definatively say that "FLOW DOES NOT EXIST" it is just inhibited

As you know, Tina, I have no objections to threeness delivering the fundamental aspects of it all, but as you can tell from my reply to Rybot, I also have no objections to placing duality in that central spot. The single point in opposition to both deliveries is that both are completely true within their own context, but each does not deliver the ultimate toe, only appear to deliver the toe. The ultimate toe must incorporate both.

From the context of the toe, the neutral position of the light switch is in itself not sufficient to have the toe incorporate everything that is required. From my perspective, you are limiting yourself to the electron flow, and that cannot do the overall trick. As said, the toe is a box — nothing more, nothing less — and the only mistake we can make is getting fixed on a box that is a box indeed, but not the toe box.

A theory of sixness gives both the twoness and the threeness their own fundamental spot. Both must be placed in the larger context to both be correct at the same time.

In my pyramidal theory, the six positions are portrayed by 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. As you know, the 0 does not amount to much; yet it is giving the empty spot its rightful fundamental place within the six-pack — which means it could be described as fiveness just as well. Number 0 is quite important from the perspective of neutrality that in Protheory is taken in only by 3. For the pyramidal theory, please add 0 to that 3 of neutrality.

[rybot]

Originally Posted by Fredrick As said, the toe is a box — nothing more, nothing less — and the only mistake we can make is getting fixed on a box that is a box indeed, but not the toe box..

Hi Fredrick. I would like to add, that any *box*-like container for a TOE will need to be stable or stablized in order to be considered as having structural integrity.

For structural integrity threenees as triangulation is neccesssary.

As it is with anything of universe. E.g a box-like house anywhere in the world is stablized by having triangulation within its structure.

Table salt is cubical but has central atoms between the 4 that define the square( 90 dgreeness ).

We *may* be correct in stating that no 3D thing of universe, can have strucutral integrity, without triangulation of some of its componet parts.

In the most simple sense, a metaphysically 2D triangle, as threeness, inherently includes your sixness i.e. a triangle has 3 internal acute(?) angles and three external obtuse(?) angles.

In the 2D metaphysical the triangle divides all into two three parts:

1) all the macro-infinite area outside of the triangle

2) all of the finite area withini the triangle

3) and that set of three parts, which defines the triangle, is that which sperates the two areas.

Rybo

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by rybot I would like to add, that any *box*-like container for a TOE will need to be stable or stabilized in order to be considered as having structural integrity. In the most simple sense, a metaphysically 2D triangle, as threeness, inherently includes your sixness i.e. a triangle has 3 internal acute(?) angles and three external obtuse(?) angles. In the 2D metaphysical the triangle divides all into two three parts: 1) all the macro-infinite area outside of the triangle 2) all of the finite area within the triangle 3) and that set of three parts, which defines the triangle, is that which separates the two areas. Rybo

Quite interestingly put, Rybo, and I can only say 'Maybe so, but also maybe not,' because if I so desire I can write:

In the 2D metaphysical the triangle divides all into two two parts:

1) all the macro-infinite area outside of the triangle

2) all of the finite area within the triangle

And have that be all there is to write. The third delivery can be made, but can also be seen as redundant.

Good point about the stabilizing power of triangulation. I guess that brings it back to the toe box (and I may be the one being redundant here): it must be seen as an overall box enabling all options to come about (enabling both twoness and threeness — even simultaneously so), not as an actual box of summing up all actual deliveries where when one is correct then that automatically excludes the other from being correct as well.

[rybot]

Originally Posted by Fredrick Quite interestingly put, Rybo, and I can only say 'Maybe so, but also maybe not,' because if I so desire I can write: In the 2D metaphysical the triangle divides all into two two parts: 1) all the macro-infinite area outside of the triangle 2) all of the finite area within the triangle And have that be all there is to write. The third delivery can be made, but can also be seen as redundant. Fredrick, I do not see the redundancy nor why you would exclude (#3) "the triangle componets", for if you do that, then there is no definition of threeness ergo no "interior area" i.e. by excluding #3, you exclude the word "triangle" in #1 and # 2 and all that was inherently part of the scenario. Good point about the stabilizing power of triangulation. I guess that brings it back to the toe box (and I may be the one being redundant here): it must be seen as an overall box enabling all options to come about (enabling both twoness and threeness — even simultaneously so), not as an actual box of summing up all actual deliveries where when one is correct then that automatically excludes the other from being correct as well.

[COLOR="rgb(255, 140, 0)"]Now I repeat myself by reminding you of the triangles inherent angular sixness. 3 female-like concavities and 3 male-like convexities. Rybo
[/color]

[dipayankar]

Hi Fredrick.. can we have a neutral position in a light switch scenario... if yes then the truth tables need to be reworked...

Originally Posted by Fredrick As you know, Tina, I have no objections to threeness delivering the fundamental aspects of it all, but as you can tell from my reply to Rybot, I also have no objections to placing duality in that central spot. The single point in opposition to both deliveries is that both are completely true within their own context, but each does not deliver the ultimate toe, only appear to deliver the toe. The ultimate toe must incorporate both. From the context of the toe, the neutral position of the light switch is in itself not sufficient to have the toe incorporate everything that is required. From my perspective, you are limiting yourself to the electron flow, and that cannot do the overall trick. As said, the toe is a box — nothing more, nothing less — and the only mistake we can make is getting fixed on a box that is a box indeed, but not the toe box. A theory of sixness gives both the twoness and the threeness their own fundamental spot. Both must be placed in the larger context to both be correct at the same time. In my pyramidal theory, the six positions are portrayed by 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. As you know, the 0 does not amount to much; yet it is giving the empty spot its rightful fundamental place within the six-pack — which means it could be described as fiveness just as well. Number 0 is quite important from the perspective of neutrality that in Protheory is taken in only by 3. For the pyramidal theory, please add 0 to that 3 of neutrality.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Hi Fredrick.. can we have a neutral position in a light switch scenario... if yes then the truth tables need to be reworked...

If you let me first state that the light switch is a contrived condition (but one that may nevertheless be insightful), and you give me the leeway to let my fantasy run the show, then I can come up with a light switch that is fully in place, but no electrical flow comes near it. In that scenario, whether the light switch is on or off, the outcome is the same. Grant me the honor to call it neutral since on nor off changes the situation.

And that brings it back to the first statement, that conditional requirements are first set and must then be met.

Rybo, thank you for the reminder. I do not disagree, but I can additionally remark that a triangle as a whole is a singular entity. Can you come up with anything that can be broken down to just three individual aspects of similar condition and stature? Example of two: male and female. Example of four: Father, mother, daughter and son.

[rybot]

Originally Posted by Fredrick If you let me first state that the light switch is a contrived condition (but one that may nevertheless be insightful), and you give me the leeway to let my fantasy run the show, then I can come up with a light switch that is fully in place, but no electrical flow comes near it. In that scenario, whether the light switch is on or off, the outcome is the same. Grant me the honor to call it neutral since on nor off changes the situation. Good thought Fredrick, however to be clear here, the light switch may be as much irrelevant, as it is neutralized when there is no flow of electrons to it. And that brings it back to the first statement, that conditional requirements are first set and must then be met. Rybo, thank you for the reminder. I do not disagree, but I can additionally remark that a triangle as a whole is a singular entity. Can you come up with anything that can be broken down to just three individual aspects of similar condition and stature?

Fredrick, that is so true of anything taken as a whole, e.g. a human.

I'm not sure of what is meant by you latter comment above.

I think you are asking for a concept of a something that is has less than a total of three aspects e.g. a line has no angles or it could be said to have to 360 angles at each terminal end.

Then we may say we have three and only three aspects:

1) the line
2) left end( terminus )
3) right end( terminus )

Perhaps we could go with the idea of a conceptual point, however, whats the point? Pun and no pun intended. :--)

Rybo

[dipayankar]

Okay, I was thinking more in terms of practicallity...

Originally Posted by Fredrick If you let me first state that the light switch is a contrived condition (but one that may nevertheless be insightful), and you give me the leeway to let my fantasy run the show, then I can come up with a light switch that is fully in place, but no electrical flow comes near it. In that scenario, whether the light switch is on or off, the outcome is the same. Grant me the honor to call it neutral since on nor off changes the situation. And that brings it back to the first statement, that conditional requirements are first set and must then be met. Rybo, thank you for the reminder. I do not disagree, but I can additionally remark that a triangle as a whole is a singular entity. Can you come up with anything that can be broken down to just three individual aspects of similar condition and stature? Example of two: male and female. Example of four: Father, mother, daughter and son.