[rybot]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Hey Rybo,

I like to read your information that there are only three primary, stable regular symmetrical polyhedrons. I wish I knew more about them. The question I would ask is do these three come in their own versions only, or are there for instance two versions of the icosahedron (though I would imagine, for instance, that both icosahedra are then considered too similar to be seen as different). A second point I have about the polyhedrons is that they are quite specific and appear to exist in the abstract only. Still, I will accept this as an example of three.

Hey Fredrick, these three are the only three primary, regular/symmetrical, triangulated polyhedra of universe.

Tetrahedron is 4 equalteral triangles( 12 surface angles = 720 degrees)
{ is 4-fold rotational symmetry only }

Octahedron is 8 equalateral triangles( 24 surface angles = 1440 degrees )
{ is 4-fold rotaional symmetry only }

Icosahedron is 20 equalateral triangles( 60 surface angles = 2400 degrees )
{ is 5-fold rotational symmetry that also contains 4-fold symmetry }

I disagree with the three cosmic directions you provide since the three are all center-based (in, out, and around), and our cosmos may not be center-based (or may not be just center-based). Though the Big Bang theory delivers ample evidence about a central location from which everything moves outwardly, this does not automatically mean all came from a singular spot. If all came out of a large concentrated area then various aspects of our cosmos are not center-based, but could, for instance, be considered edge- or regional-based.

Fredrick, you may have misunderstood, in that tho I used the word cosmic, those three directions are universally( cosmic ) absolute regardless of where you are in universe. E.g. Wherever I am in universe I can point one and only one directions that is "IN" to my bedroom or house, or bathroom ergo is pointable.

Similar situation for out except it is omni-directional outward from any point in universe E.g if in my bedroom I can point in any direction and they will all be outwards from my bedroom --to be technically correct here I suppose they bedwroom would need to be really small or I have long arm so that my finger is acutally outside of the room, but this almost a semantic not picky point.

Now as for "AROUND", in its most pure sense it is niether IN nor OUT i.e.it is around a center point. No to be technically correct, as in reality, anything that is going around something else is either tending to fall into that system or out of that system.

Falling in or out may take thousands of years before it can be said that it is no longer orbiting around that system.

I am interested to learn more about  action, reaction and resultant since I do not understand the concepts precisely. Looking at the words, both action and reaction appear to be resultants already, so the three seem to exist within two categories, not one.

Locally, we may say that there is an initiating "action". This especially true if you believe in 'limited Free will choice'. For every action in universe there is a "reaction". This is conventional rocketship type physics of opposing forces

So let us say that the rocket ship blasting off( action ), creates a reaction of the thing it blasts off from is moved the opposite direction, even if ever so lightly.

THe "resultant" of this action and reaction may be many i.e. one resultant is that the rocketship is redesigne so as to not require as much force in its blast in order to get where it is going.

Another resultant may be that humans decide to scrap rocketships for another technolgy all together that doesnt creat the "reaction" force that may have been a problem for whatever reasons.

One answer I may be able to give about threeness is that an appearance of three can exist, though only when various aspects aligns. When I take the three numbers 0, 1, and 2 and add them up I get three as well. Only due to the empty spot of 0 can we get [i]three out of three[/i]. Depending on the acceptance or the rejection of the empty spot as significant we either end up with[i] three out of three[/i] or with [i]three out of two[/i]. Personally, I fully accept the empty spot as fundamental, and vital in helping us understand everything. As an example, I envision an empty central spot within the Big Bang for the very first moments. I therefore reject the idea that materialization of the center took place at the beginning, I only accept the idea of initial materialization of the surrounding area.

So Fredrick I guess this 0, 1 and 2 is the answer that meets your set of parameters? E.g negative -1 and -2 and zero can mean diffferrent things depending on where it is placed.

Well, I'm not going to get nitpicky as to whether these are in same catagory etc...I don't even remember exactly how your parameters are stated

Like I say, I was never very clear on what those exactly are and executed.

Rybo

[Fredrick]

Thank you, Rybo, for letting me know about the three symmetrical, triangulated polyhedrons. I do not know if I can do much with this information, but I do like that at this mathematical level there is something that fits the three delivery.

As with the cosmic directions, I don't think I can accept the 'around' as being of the same category as the in and out. I could accept it, but only if the line not going in or out or around is added in as well. Einstein's relativity (the non-centric aspect) is then fully addressed this latter way, while it is not the other ways. In my opinion, around belongs to a different category, in which I would also place the parabola movement — a direction that is a movement different from around, and also not fully in nor fully out.

I have the same problem with the resultant aspect next to action and reaction, since reaction already is a partial resultant to the action. These are basically two different categories.

I used the 0, 1, and 2 numbers to show that a single category can consist of three numbers delivering an outcome in value of also three. Yet the empty position of 0 is of course a very special addition to the other two numbers.

If I were to use the two cosmic directions of in and out again, I could add a third cosmic direction by declaring no-direction (i.e. of remaining in place) as part of the same category. I do not know if you mind me discussing it this way (after what I said above), but around and no-direction may be intricately linked. Though around shows a clear visual direction, as a result their is actually no-direction, because 'it' is not going anywhere but around. Again, next to these three I could add the not-connected direction as the fourth aspect.

Originally Posted by rybot

I guess this 0, 1 and 2 is the answer that meets your set of parameters? E.g negative -1 and -2 and zero can mean different things depending on where it is placed.

Well, I'm not going to get nit-picky as to whether these are in same category etc...I don't even remember exactly how your parameters are stated

Like I say, I was never very clear on what those exactly are and executed.

Rybo, I have never seen anything that is -1 or -2. Unless you can give me a clear example of something that is -2 and that be it (just like 2 can be used for 2 oranges); I can accept these numbers only within a relative framework (first there were 2 oranges, now they are gone/eaten, so we lack 2 oranges —> a relative answer, because the real result is 0 oranges).

The parameters I apply may indeed be (too) specific. My improved version: Find three items and three items only belonging to one category, equal to each other in at least one sense, and have that be all there is to that category.

I am accepting your three symmetrical, triangulated polyhedrons (unless someone else can explain to me how these three contain a basic difference and therefore belong to, for instance, two categories and not one). Some categories that are very close indeed to fitting the requirements are red, blue and yellow, and solid, fluid, and gas, but they are not the whole story to the category (for instance red, blue and green instead of yellow in light as source).

Rybo, more but similar questions. If I set up the three requirement this way does it make more sense? And if I use the category 'parent' do you agree there are only two options to fit that category: mother and father?

[rybot]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Ok Fredrick, then maybe try and think of it this way. Start with any position in space and think as follows:

IN is left or down and a specificaly point-to-able direction

OUT is right or up is a non-point-to-able, specifically

Now this two are at 180 degrees to each other ergo like opposites

AROUND is at at approximately 90 degrees to either one of these above IN or OUT.




Reaction is a direct and some what predicable effect in physics whereas resultant has less to do with physics and less predictable is real phenomena and may be numerious to action reaction set of events.




If 0, 1 and 2 are in the catagory of 'numbers' then negative one( -1 ) and negative two( -2 ) are also in the catagory of numbers. This positive and negative numebers are used in a larger catagory called mathematics

The thing with catagories, Fredrieck, is that there is always a higher( more cosmic/generalized ) ergo less specific catagory, that does include all the subject matter.

In some cases you may being more specific with your catgorizing than in other cases.

E.g. with three primary colors.

All color is directly associable with visible light, which is narrow band of the much larger catagory of EM-Radiation.

Within the catagory of EMR and more specifically, visible light, there are only three primary colors.

You rejected that because of more specific set of circumstances regarding painter/artist types.

So, this can get very complicated in setting catagories that comply to every situation with your specific set of parameters.

I'm not interested enough to spend to much more time on this as the info on threes I've given is best that I already have to offer without putting to much more effort in this area with specific sets of parameters.

Rybo

[Fredrick]

Thank you, Rybo, for your time and patience. It was good for me to spar with you on this, and I agree that the parameters I am setting are not immediately clear, though the previous attempt I came up with may be the one that sticks, of asking to find three items and three items only belonging to one category, equal to each other in at least one sense, and have that be all there is to that category.

Thank you for your time, Rybo.

[rybot]

Thanks to you also. If I find my longer list of threes I will try and share them with you.

Rybo

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Thank you, Rybo, for your time and patience. It was good for me to spar with you on this, and I agree that the parameters I am setting are not immediately clear, though the previous attempt I came up with may be the one that sticks, of asking to find three items and three items only belonging to one category, equal to each other in at least one sense, and have that be all there is to that category.

Thank you for your time, Rybo.

[rybot]

Originally Posted by rybot

Thanks to you also. If I find my longer list of threes I will try and share them with you.
Rybo

Fredrick, I thought of two new ways of viewing threeness.

We are bilateral creatures but we have physical, if not metaphysical axis i.e. the spinal nerves come off common and central axis. Our brains also have the corpus callosum between the two hemi-spheres. Our left and right legs arms etc.. are extended from this cental axis.

The other way looking at threeness goes back to the negative numbers I mentioned.

-1 0 1 where "1" is also regarded as plus one( +1 ).

This three, if not left and right is inside out( negative per se ) and outside out( positive per se ).

There is a differrence between left-right and inside-out-outside out.

Rybo




In these case

[Tina]

Originally Posted by rybot

Fredrick, I thought of two new ways of viewing threeness.


The other way looking at threeness goes back to the negative numbers I mentioned.

-1 0 1 where "1" is also regarded as plus one( +1 ).

This three, if not left and right is inside out( negative per se ) and outside out( positive per se ).

There is a differrence between left-right and inside-out-outside out.

Rybo

I must advise you of Protheory TOE which basically states that Everything can be explained literally or mataphorically in terms of a dynamic relationship between a Negative, Positive and Neutral Potentials.

[rybot]

Geometry/pattern is all about *signs/symbols* but the 3D minimalistic tetrahedron, is the universal symbol for a stable set of three primary *crosses*.

tetrahedron = + + + i.e. six edges define three sets of 90 degree( perpendicular ) vector orientations.

At the same time we have the tetrahedrons four *crossings* ergo that is where you "cross" any geodesical obritings you venture upon in your travels through the cosmos. :--))

These crossings( vertexia ) are symbolized by an open ended triangle ;

*


*

* *

When the two are combined we get the following sign/symbol;

*
+

+ * +
+ +

* + *

Rybo

[rybot]

Originally Posted by Tina

I must advise you of Protheory TOE which basically states that Everything can be explained literally or mataphorically in terms of a dynamic relationship between a Negative, Positive and Neutral Potentials.

Hey Tina, I think that is no differrent than -1 0 1 the latter aka +1

electron( -1 ) neutron positron( +1 )

left spin no spin right spin


However, in rethinking inside-out and outside-out there is no neutrality, unless we consider the momentary 2D appeance as the fourth vertex of the tetrahedon passes through the opposing triangualr opening, all four are in the same plane ergo 2D and the neutral position between inside-out and outside-out.

Without this 2D considerations, I see no 3D neutrality between those two phases of 3D polyhedral volume.

Hmm, thanks Tina for getting me to rethink that one. Excellent!

Rybo

[Tina]

Originally Posted by rybot

Hey Tina, I think that is no differrent than -1 0 1 the latter aka +1

However, in rethinking inside-out and outside-out there is no neutrality,...
..... I see no 3D neutrality between those two phases of 3D polyhedral volume.

Hmm, thanks Tina for getting me to rethink that one. Excellent!

Rybo

When you're rethinking this please bear in mind that "neutrality" means

not positive (+1)

and not negative (-1) The negation/opposite of (+1)

but something else

Neutral is also a point from which all measurements can be made.

Take three points of triangle - any point can be named "neutral" in relation to the other two points which diverge into the +1 and -1 directions determined by the Neutral point.

Do you see how neutrality is a relative position of counterbalance between to other arbitrary positions...it is not necessarily a statement of literal position or function of doing nothing.

These things are so difficult for me to express clearly here