The Three Theory

[Fredrick]

Thank you for that explanation, Max, and it looks like you are doing your best to stay on the right side of the line, too.

For your information, here are the topics I believe I created myself, and which I have been propagating for several if not many years:

* The ToE based on the lack of singularity (as fundamental part, not as accidentally occurring);
* The ToE display of a pyramid (that Austin turned into a beautiful image) in which four forces are taking in the four corners at the bottom, two in opposition (Strong and Weak Nuclear Force), two as a pair showing transformation (Electric Force and Magnetic Force). In top we find the abstract of the framework. Unification cannot take place (except in the abstract, or with man-made conditions, and possibly for accidentally and locally occuring moments; this latter aspect being an option I only consider possible for two or three years now, but still not belonging to the fundamental level; it would only be possible as a result of the fundaments).
* Gravity should be seen as an internal collective force that automatically occurs due to the existence of the other four forces (of which E/M is often considered to actually be a single force).
* The mathematical information that zero always exists in mathematical systems.
* The basic matrix of six numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 from which the prime number sequence can be explained.
* Duality is the basis of our universe, but unity may be established in parts.
* The non-existence of black holes; they are rather gray holes or ash holes, a spot where no gravity exists within the collective galactic gravitational field.
* Empty Nest, or the lack of materialization within the heart of the Big Bang, an empty location that could have been involved with subsequent changes taking place in our early universe.
* Materialization occurred from the first state onto the current state due to an internalized conflict on that first state in which a letting-go took place, a subsequent catapulting movement followed, and only then materialization started to form with the outwardly moving energy incorporating the experienced letting-go of the center location within the first state.
* The outward movement contains three steps: the first is the catapulting outwardly of the energy of the first state, the second step is the creation of matter due to the incorporation of what took place within the first state and this being the start of our universe, and the third step is the newly created matter no longer being uniform, creating an additional conflict at the materialized level; so there are two conflicts, and three stages. The second conflict may have added additional movement to the outward movement. A return to the first state was already made impossible the moment the first letting-go (or rift if you wish) took place.
* Two dimensions is all it takes to create a full spatial delivery. Though three directions are indeed in place of up-down, left-right, front-back, the two dimensions when each is seen as a field are all that is required. The in-out pair should be seen as the most important pair for matter.
* String Theory is based on one-dimensional deliveries, something that is impossible, because single dimensions (from the 3D set-up) do not exist. There is only 3D (or as I call it 2D+), while the creation of fake/art of 2D can exist within a 3D setting. 1D is humbug, and is actually a direction, not a dimension.
* The phenomenon of Nothing is always there, and plays the central role in understanding why and how our universe came into being, but it is not the source from which the universe came into being.
* To understand the difference between a religious framework and a scientific framework is the fastest way to understand the ToE (and gives understanding why the ToE was not found for this long). The religious framework is based on one topic (for instance, god). The scientific framework is based on at least two topics (for instance, Time & Space). Understanding frameworks (what may amount to being a linguistic entity) is at the heart of understanding the overall picture. The Theory of Everything may sound like a single framework, but cannot be other than a framework based on several topics (or several forces) that collectively show a pyramid of positions at the largest level.
* Frameworks always have an abstract top due to the phenomenon of Nothing (and I also thank Pat for giving me a deeper insight in this information with his 8-cube image). If we have four parts, we still have five positions (for example, four individual positions plus the overall position); if we have eight parts, we still have nine positions. Add the zero position, and we have the decimal system (or we have the matrix in the first example). This added overall position as a separate position should also immediately explain why scientific frameworks cannot be based on just a single topic, and why number 1 is and isn't a prime number.
* Overall frameworks, such as Space and Time, are based on two individual topics that do not become something new together, rather they create a more complex outcome by 1/ remaining true to their own topic's framework, and 2/ create one or two new topic frameworks of transformational character (see pyramid) due to their limited collective connections. Our universe knows therefore two oppositional forces from which the E and M forces are derivatives and in which the gravitational force is an automatic occurrence.
* The two oppositional forces may be seen as grounded, while the E and M forces may be each other's inside-out delivery; gravity isn't a something (much like wind isn't a something, rather it is an occurrence).

I believe I am forgetting a thing or two here, but when I remember, I'll let you know.

Naturally, I am indebted to the entire team of ToeQuest for making me think differently about how to deliver this ToE. While not changing the essential set-up, the many communications often allowed me to find new and better wording for the same mechanisms.

[Fredrick]

Two more:

* Time and Space do not occur at the same time (this was also mentioned in the Scientific American article). Time occurred (or better: started) before Space occurred.
* I link many of my deliveries to ancient thought, and claim we are still in a Renaissance.

Most of these ideas, like the one described about time and space, were published in 2000. Some were adjusted to bring more clarity to the specific wording I used.

I linked the above mentioned example of time and space to the Greek delivery of more than 2000 years ago of Father Time and Sonny Zeus.

[dipayankar]

The last thing that I will be doing is to go to a religious frame. However I was just trying to eliminate zero. If I cant, then obviously I will go back to the starting line.

That is an excellent way to go about, Dipayan.

For your information, eliminating something is an action that can be described as giving something a value of zero. That action you describe, to eliminate zero, would then be a paradox: using the function of zero to make zero itself be nothing (something with a value of zero) is improper. I hope you can read through all the verbal confusion that this set up of the argument creates, and I hope you'll read it as I intended: making something as not there is making use of the function of zero and can therefore not be applied to zero itself: impossible action. According to my mathematical information, if you want to state that zero is not there (and indeed you have the freedom to do so), then you have moved from a scientific framework into a religious framework. Possible, but no longer scientific. This is in essence the message of my book, and the path to understand the ToE.

For your information on the third dimension: I state that there are no three dimensions, only three directions (of up-down, left-right, and front-back). The three directions belong to a spatial framework that should not be applied (though this is confusingly yet again very well possible) to the material framework when interested in the nature of matter. Space and matter belong to different frameworks (though if you wish they can be found on yet a different framework together as well). For understanding the dimensional essence of matter only the collective actions of in&out and the fact that for matter there is always at least a direction need to be considered.

As an example of the importance of the in&out dimensional action, a fertalized egg divides itself first, and when divided enough times a growth takes place with the parts on the inside receiving signals that are different from the signals received by those cells on the outside, leading to different developments of the cells. Or, as another example, with 100 people tightly packed when trying to buy tickets for a concert, the ones on the outside of the line will experience different (more) options (less pressure) than those in the middle of the line; it may, for instance, make those who do not like this ask others to buy tickets for them, and the people waiting in such line will then have experienced a new kind of overall selection as well.

I am sorry if I come across as a little bit curt here, but I just read about an idea I described in my book In Search of a Cyclops in Scientific American of their October 2008 issue, an idea I consider mine about the inward action occurring before the outward action of the Big Bang took place, and that I published back in 2000 and discussed often online. I guess it is the risk of describing and communicating about ideas, that others can then run with it. There is no way to control ideas, so I have no other option that to accept that as a fact of life.

The framework of the ToE I provide is also rather simple, and while I need to continue communicating about this idea, I have to accept that others can simply run with it, too.

[Fredrick]

The last thing that I will be doing is to go to a religious frame. However I was just trying to eliminate zero. If I cant, then obviously I will go back to the starting line.

Good, Dipayan,

Let me know if I can help you further with understanding what is so special about zero. I see you get the point that negating negation itself is a paradox (but I bet that a lot of folks out there just go ahead and do it anyway because it is so easy to do).

[dipayankar]

We are a land of zeros. In fact we invented it. My onsession is nature does not have the concept of neutral.. it can always be broken down into positive and negative. In my mind basically zero should not exist...

Good, Dipayan,

Let me know if I can help you further with understanding what is so special about zero. I see you get the point that negating negation itself is a paradox (but I bet that a lot of folks out there just go ahead and do it anyway because it is so easy to do).

[Fredrick]

We are a land of zeros. In fact we invented it. My obsession is nature does not have the concept of neutral.. it can always be broken down into positive and negative. In my mind basically zero should not exist...

Again, good thinking. India is the place where the modern zero was born (though older less developed versions of zero were in use as placeholders in Middle Eastern and Mayan cultures for a few centuries already).

To have nature that is never neutral as the sole focus of the whole is what is not correct in your view, Dipayan. There is more to everything than just nature.

Let's agree that there is no such thing as a framework in which zero takes up the entire framework. We can conjure it, but it would not be anything.

Then there are the two frameworks that are different: there is no such thing as a scientific framework in which 1 takes up the entire framework; in religion this is possible.

Make sure you have no single entity in focus as the entire picture, because you have then entered a religious realm.

In nature, we have 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 ,7 8, 9 and etcetera. As you can see, the zero is a part of nature, for instance, the summer solstice and the winter solstice, when the sun moves neither in more positive nor in more negative territory. It may just be a fraction of time, but the directional movement of the sun from our perspective in this nature is zero. And wonderfully, in reality there is no difference between where the sun was standing the day before or the day after; it is still in its same location at the center of the solar system. And earth did not wiggle either, this is all just happening because the spin is occurring at a 23 degree angle. So, the zero is really a zero in that it not exists, but we nevertheless experience it, and nature behaves according to this rhythm that automatically includes zero.

Yes, zero does not exist as source, but at the same time I must inform you that it does exist in the results. It is true that one can have zero coins in a wallet (but one has to start with using money first for this to become important) ; it is true that a tree can have zero seeds this year (but one has to start with a seed that grew into a tree first), it is true that you may understand nothing (zero) of what I write (but we must have started with a conversation about something first).

Zero is a position that is empty. It cannot exist all by itself in a framework of nothing; it is part of what came to exist.

Let's take the simple use of numbers as an example: 100 is that specific number with three positions where exactly one hundred things exist. If there were more, the zero(es) behind the 1 would have been other number(s).

I can write 10, but if I want to stick to three numbers, I can write 010. In this case, the zero in front and the zero in back are both placeholders of no additional value. But the zero in front adds fully nothing and can be left out (as in: 10), while the zero behind cannot be left out for it would change the number (as 10 into 1). The first zero is the same as an absolute nothing, and we can decide to put it there or not (or have more zeroes in front as in 000000010), the second zero is an actual placeholder of nothing additional, and cannot be removed without changing the meaning of the 1.

And my mathematical evidence (that some don't like but that has not been disproven or undermined in any scientific way) shows that once something is here, nothing is here, too.

[dipayankar]

Okay lets a void in space. Mathematically it is zero. By physically we have billions of particles popping up with their anti-particle so that the sum total becomes zero again. But in reality they are there, mathematically they are not there.

Again, good thinking. India is the place where the modern zero was born (though older less developed versions of zero were in use as placeholders in Middle Eastern and Mayan cultures for a few centuries already).

To have nature that is never neutral as the sole focus of the whole is what is not correct in your view, Dipayan. There is more to everything than just nature.

Let's agree that there is no such thing as a framework in which zero takes up the entire framework. We can conjure it, but it would not be anything.

Then there are the two frameworks that are different: there is no such thing as a scientific framework in which 1 takes up the entire framework; in religion this is possible.

Make sure you have no single entity in focus as the entire picture, because you have then entered a religious realm.

In nature, we have 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 ,7 8, 9 and etcetera. As you can see, the zero is a part of nature, for instance, the summer solstice and the winter solstice, when the sun moves neither in more positive nor in more negative territory. It may just be a fraction of time, but the directional movement of the sun from our perspective in this nature is zero. And wonderfully, in reality there is no difference between where the sun was standing the day before or the day after; it is still in its same location at the center of the solar system. And earth did not wiggle either, this is all just happening because the spin is occurring at a 23 degree angle. So, the zero is really a zero in that it not exists, but we nevertheless experience it, and nature behaves according to this rhythm that automatically includes zero.

Yes, zero does not exist as source, but at the same time I must inform you that it does exist in the results. It is true that one can have zero coins in a wallet (but one has to start with using money first for this to become important) ; it is true that a tree can have zero seeds this year (but one has to start with a seed that grew into a tree first), it is true that you may understand nothing (zero) of what I write (but we must have started with a conversation about something first).

Zero is a position that is empty. It cannot exist all by itself in a framework of nothing; it is part of what came to exist.

Let's take the simple use of numbers as an example: 100 is that specific number with three positions where exactly one hundred things exist. If there were more, the zero(es) behind the 1 would have been other number(s).

I can write 10, but if I want to stick to three numbers, I can write 010. In this case, the zero in front and the zero in back are both placeholders of no additional value. But the zero in front adds fully nothing and can be left out (as in: 10), while the zero behind cannot be left out for it would change the number (as 10 into 1). The first zero is the same as an absolute nothing, and we can decide to put it there or not (or have more zeroes in front as in 000000010), the second zero is an actual placeholder of nothing additional, and cannot be removed without changing the meaning of the 1.

And my mathematical evidence (that some don't like but that has not been disproven or undermined in any scientific way) shows that once something is here, nothing is here, too.

[Fredrick]

Okay lets a void in space. Mathematically it is zero. By physically we have billions of particles popping up with their anti-particle so that the sum total becomes zero again. But in reality they are there, mathematically they are not there.

Good. To make it clear from which direction I am coming: there is no single overall framework, rather it consists of frameworks. So I have a framework of frameworks that itself contains division between the parts. And the overall framework of frameworks is not zero, rather zero belongs to that framework.

To identify what space is, I do not have to include everything inside that framework, I only have to make certain that whatever fits in the framework of space also belongs there, fits the description.

To discuss space, and automatically suggest there is a lot going on in space and therefore say that space is what it contains is according to me incorrect (but quite normal to assume). A room is often considered that place with all the furniture included, but if we have a picture of the room decade after decade, we can see that the furniture gets replaced, and ultimately all orginal objects in the room are replaced by new objects (some several times). What is then the appropriate framework of a Room? I claim the the ultimate framework is just what it inside the framing of the space that the room now contains. The room therefore at its penultimate state is a framed space, and not the furniture. However, with the framework of the Room, the ability to put furniture in the room is available. What happens to the room, I would put that in a new framework of What the family or person did with the room.

Something similar is found with language. Words are nothing but sounds, but while you have to learn at first that the sounds of eh-pol (sorry for the way I wrote this; this means apple) stands for the fruit, over time we associate the word with the object to such a level that it is close to impossible to distinguish the word from the object anymore. So when someone mentions the word apple, our brain conjures the actual thing, while in reality the word is just two syllables of sounds and nothing more.

The framework is a thin layer of abstraction, so when I state the framework of Space, then I am not talking about what is possible within space, only what strictly belongs to it. For the word apple that would be eh, p, l (and for some it also contains the second vowel of oh -sorry, can't write this sound down better- for others the word can already be pronounced correctly with just the first three).

Back to zero.

Within matter we were born and from matter we will retreat. From the perspective of matter we both are each now a 1 (one human being). After our passing away we will be 0 in a material-spiritual sense. Some matter remains, and some spirit may remain, too, who knows, but the two are no longer combined, so no longer 1. Zero is an automatic part, but it is itself not a something. So you are absolutely right that there isn't something with zero, but that there is something going on nevertheless. The point I want to make: zero does not point to something, it points to what is not-there. Translate this to the pentaist ToE: there is ALWAYS something not-there. And therefore we cannot have a single framework and be done with it; because of nothing, it must be a framework of frameworks.

The neutral state can be described as zero, but in as far as I know, the universe is not a neutral place. I was told it is more of matter than of anti-matter. Also, please see that the framework of negative, positive and neutral is never an overall statement of zero. First there is something, and then automatically we have nothing within that overall something. In the framework of particle charge we can have zero, but first we must have the particles. And in our universe, we have something (the universe) and in this universe, we also have a lot of nothing (space). Take zero out of the picture, and you end up with a belief.