[purveyor of knowledge]

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield Someone said that they have a theory of 1/0 but you can't divide or divide by 0. Could it be that another number could divide by another number and the result shows every number from 1-9, like when you type all the numbers from 1-9 and add the same numbers together you get all the numbers back in the answer, but just jumbled up.

My credence goes to you Scott for pointing out that most mathematicians will tell you that you cannot divide by zero. It is a very good thing to point out. Now let me tell you why you can divide by zero and why it is important to complete our mathematical system.

Technically you cannot divide by zero because zero does not exit. But you can leave something undivided. There is a field in this universe that makes up everything that you see. This field is what surrounds us, and penetrates us, and binds the universe together. This field is a thing that in it's purest essence is completely undivided. That is what makes it unified!

To say that one thing is divided by nothing, or to write it out as 1/0, is to say that there is one thing that is not divided by anything at all. This must be the purest thing in the universe. Mathematicians never thought about it this way, as being something pure, because they're always thinking about the number zero and not realizing it just means nothing. If you say one divided by zero it doesn't sound like it makes any sense, but if you say one thing divided by nothing you can start understand just what it means. Leave it up to the english teachers, not the mathematicians, to realize that if you translate 1/0 into english it has a seemingly simple and straightforward meaning that seems easy as hell to understand. It simply means 1 undivided field, aka the unified field.

Funny isn't it? But it is no coincidence that the most important number in math has been undefined for so long, and at the same time we are scrambling to find a theory of everything. Funny isn't it? That there is a number in mathematics that means the value of nothing, but there is no number in mathematics that means the value of everything. I am here to tell you that there is a number in mathematics that means the value of everything, because I am a messenger. The number that means the value of everything is the forgotten one, the "stone that the builders refused," the number 1/0. It is the reciprocal of 0/1. 0/1 has no value - it is neither positive nor negative. 1/0 has the absolute greatest value - it is both positive and negative!

The major reason why mathematicians decided, in their ignorance, or lack of understanding, to call 1/0 undefined is because of this fact that it is the only number that is both positive and negative! For example, mathematicians can try to evaluate the number 1/0 by approximating it's value. So they take 1 and divide it by a smaller and smaller number, thus approaching 1/0. When you do this you see that the value goes to infinity. So the limit of your approximation goes to infinity. But wait, that's not all. You can also approximate the limit by taking 1 and dividing it by a smaller and smaller negative number.You still approach the value of 1/0 but this time you see that the value goes to negative infinity! This is written as follows

the limit
1/x
as x----->0 from the positive side
= + infinity

the limit
1/x
as x------>0 from the negative side
= -infinity

the limit
1/x
as x----->0 from both sides
= +infinity and -infinity

So normally mathematicians would have just said that 1/0 is equal to infinity, except for the fact that it is equally equal to negative infinity as well. At this point they didn't know what to do because it would seem that 1/0 is two completely opposite things at once. How is this possible? For something to be two completely opposite things at once didn't make sense to mathematicians, so they decided to call such a thing undefined, even though it was part of their mathematical system they had developed. Instead of completing their system, they said, "we don't want to go there." They said, "we are scared of what that could possibly mean." They said, "we don't understand this, let's try not to think about it."

So here I come along, with my innocence and unassuming nature. I stumbled upon 1/0 and said, "aha, let us not be afraid of this apparently contradictory number. Let us take this number and behold it, and see what it tells us by it's apparent, inherent, face value."

What I discovered has startled and surprised me beyond my wildest imagination, and has opened my eyes to a world of wonderous and unfathomable possibilities!

For example, I can show to you why it makes perfect sense for one thing to be two completely opposite things at once. For example, isn't that what we all are???

And isn't the universe as a whole composed of a positive time and a negative time, simultaneously in theory??? Isn't the inside of every black whole connected directly to a white hole??? Isn't contradiction consistently so? Think about it. Time is constant change. So time is constant, and time is change, simultaneously. Time is two completely opposite things at once!!!

Why do happy people cry? Why do we have phrases like pretty ugly, or awful beautiful? Why is it true that false is false, and false that true is false???

It is because the world is composed of a beautiful irony, an irony of truth and true paradoxes. It is because a seemingly impossible and utterly contradictory number like 1/0 does indeed have a definition, and that is the definition of everything taken together as one single thing!! That is what happens when you take opposites and combine them together into one. You get something that is pure. You get something that is perfect by it's imperfection, something that is consistent by it's contradiction. You get something so incredibly self-intwined that it simlpy had to be so, and that is why we are here!

So tell me again that you cannot have something that is undivided??? Something that surrounds us, and penetrates us, and binds the universe together???

[ScottAnfield]

Thanks for that POK, I understand 1/0 now and can see the potential in the number 0, it can stand for both positive and negative, as it is neutral. You say that 0 can illustrate two opposites and if you look at a small structure like an atom you can see 0/1 in this sense, with a proton (+) and an electron (-) as opposites so they can cancel each other out and then they would together equal 0, yet being opposites, but they can be either one or the other. The neutron could also equal 0 as it is the middle value of proton against electron.
0/1 also has connections with the three theory because the link between black and white holes could be perceived as 0 and the matter (+) and anti-matter (-) are either side of it. Mathematically, 0 could be seen as the golden mean, because there is + and - either side of it, and 0 is a balance. It could also be seen as the phi-base. As you mentioned in another post with the 2:1 ratio similarity, both theories can fit together, and something which cannot be undivided can be everything.

[ScottAnfield]

Thanks for that POK, I understand 1/0 now and can see the potential in the number 0, it can stand for both positive and negative, as it is neutral. You say that 0 can illustrate two opposites and if you look at a small structure like an atom you can see 0/1 in this sense, with a proton (+) and an electron (-) as opposites so they can cancel each other out and then they would together equal 0, yet being opposites, but they can be either one or the other. The neutron could also equal 0 as it is the middle value of proton against electron.
0/1 also has connections with the three theory because the link between black and white holes could be perceived as 0 and the matter (+) and anti-matter (-) are either side of it. Mathematically, 0 could be seen as the golden mean, because there is + and - either side of it, and 0 is a balance. It could also be seen as the phi-base. As you mentioned in another post with the 2:1 ratio similarity, both theories can fit together, and something which cannot be undivided can be everything.

I was reading about the golden mean and it said that Pythagoras varied the strings of instruments and produced other chords: a ratio of 2:1 produced notes an octave apart. (Modern music theory calls a 5:4 ratio a "major third" and an 8:5 ratio a "major sixth".) It goes on to say that Pythagoras believed that beauty was associated with ratios of small integers. Could this be the simplest ratio of small integers, using the two smallest whole numbers, is 2:1?

[N0B0DY]

Some might consider 0 to be the lowest whole number, Scott, perhaps rendering 1:0 as a ratio.

As for 1/0, there was a chart that you has posted a while back, POK, depicting 1 and 0 at the top and bottom of the y axis, and -1 and +1 at the right and left of the x axis.

If the chart instead depicted -1 and +1 at the bottom and top of the y axis, then there would be the 0 in the center of the chart, with both axes representative of 0 relative to each other.

It's true that 1/0 can be defined as representing an undivided whole, but it is misleading because the whole is "one" whole non-existent state - with the denominator representing the number of parts remaining. Wheras 1/1 is used for the representation of "one" whole existent state - with a denominator of 1.

The same applies to the north-south polarity, and the TOE, that can be reduced infinitely and always remain dualistic - positive and negative poles and forces. Absolute unification is the squishing of both poles into none, not one, because if there is one there it will always have two separate poles. Even the neutron, Scott, is allegedly made up of polar quarks, and the neutron itself is said to have a magnetic moment implying it is a dipole as well.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield I had a thought about the binary system with the numbers 1 and 0, it could be with any number such as 4 and 7. Does this make the 1 and 0 less credible because it can be replaced with any other numbers or does it strengthen it, as it encompassed all the numbers and not just two?

Lots of good questions, Scott, but how could someone with an excellent site on the number three not have good questions (and answers)?

In as far as the binary system being mentioned in similar fashion as 1 and 2, or 4 and 7 as you propose, I agree that these pairs of numbers could portray the binary system, but they do not cover the essence fully. The non-appointment that zero provides is not covered by any of the numbers in the other pairs. The binary system is based on one that is and another that isn't (but nevertheless is functional, if you get my drift). Anything that can get expressed in numbers, can get expressed in the binary system; it is just a cruder method in some ways.

If you wish, you can see a system of three in the binary system because the 111s in this system are not like the 1 in the decimal system. In the decimal system only 1 can be the winner, the others are not-1. In the binary system everything that is, is 1. So, 1 in the binary system is used both for the winner and the loser (albeit differently). In the abstract (and describing something in numbers is by definition abstract) two 1s are sufficient to describe all oppositional positions. The sum: 1 + 1 + 0 = 3 different positions.

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield I also think that the the ultimate structure must contain duality, but should not be limited by it. This ties in with the theory because if you look at a tripod standing, it has more strength than something with two stands, it needs the other stand to support it, but it may not be obvious or seen.

I agree, but I use the tripod myself as an example to not be fooled by three when focusing on the overall aspect of things. One tripod is only one tripod, not three. Nevertheless, when looking for the aspects of it, then three becomes quite important.

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield Even Professor Hawking has in recent years come to the conclusion that singularities don't exist. You have said that if a singularity cannot exist, then people would stop looking for a unified field. Why would they not try to find a unified field that doesn't include singularities, like mine? A unified field is something that unites everything, a theory of everything, that encompasses the whole universe and everything within it and even its own structure.

If a unified theory only needs to explain everything within a single overall theory, then I can theoretically follow you there. But if a unified theory requires the fundamental aspects of our universe to be somehow unified, I must decline. If what you describe with unified theory what you propose with the three theory or I with the pyramid theory then I have no problem stating it is a unified theory (because all is captured in one theory), but the reality is un-unified. According to my theory, various aspects of our universe are all self-based onto themselves, and that requires all being non-unified.

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield Can you see that 1, 2 and 3 are the only trio of numbers next to one another for the whole numerical system? The three theory describes this as being that you can see the three items, but they are all separate and with these 3 numbers you can work out the rest of the primes from them. If you can see one of the three, one extreme, then you must be able to see another one, as it is the other extreme.

Again, I can agree with you, but I have my own view on this. Maybe I can best say that I am able to see everything in threes, but only if I focus on crude distinctions. I have mentioned this elsewhere on this site before, but if we view everything as black and white, then I can see three distinctions. The central aspect is gray, one side is white, the other side is black. I can make a strong case for gray as being the essential stuff our universe is made out of (for instance, replace gray with the word energy). If energy is absent, we end up with black (lack of energy), if energy is all concentrated to the max, we end up with white. Yet we end up with three only when we focus on black and white — and not on anything colored. I consider black and white one side of the coin, the colors the other side. For the same reason, I am not into 1/0 much. It is too crude of a distinction, and should be replaced by 0/1/1, 0/0/1, 0/0/0, 1/1/1, 1/0/0, 1/1/0, 1/0/1, 0/1/0. Yes, it looks like each contains three numbers.

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield You also mention that religion doesn't fit on the modern scientific framework, but the theory of everything must include religion as well, as it is apparent and acknowledged in the universe. The TOE should prove the existence of God, but what if, as religion claims, God made the universe and as the Bible says that he exists outside of time? Just as the reasoning that singularities cannot exist because they would break the rules of numerous theories, as the three theory states, 'extremely dense places do exist, but just not to the point where all the Laws of Nature collapse. This is because they are controlled by the Laws, not a controller of them'.

Well said. My idea of everything is that everything is ultimately self-based. Science is based on self-proclaimed principles, religions are based on self-proclaimed principles. I cannot connect both groups in any other way than seeing that they both have the self-based aspect in common. Their precise principles are not the same, so a comparison or compromise is not even foolish, it should not be done (because in reality it cannot be done). Even when scientists must confess that they cannot explain it all (which fits my theory), then scientists can still not use the word god because it does not belong to the basic language of science. In science, finding the correct answer or finding that the answer is incorrect are both very satisfying answers. Of course one can write woof in English, but that does not mean woof is an English word. Woof belongs to a different language group.

I have nothing against the god, gods, or no god principles — science simply isn't build to state anything about it, so no real answer should be expected from science. Is science limited? Yes (which is to be expected when everything is self-based onto its own principles)!

At the same time, each different religion has self-based principles also. God can indeed exist. But god could also have existed only prior to materialization (the event that killed god). Gods could have taken over the position that the singular god had before materialization occurred, but each god also finds itself self-based, unable to control all. And then there may be no god or gods at all. Whatever existed prior to the Big Bang does no longer exist, and we — in our quadrant of the universe — are currently the highest form available. Out of these options, I have no particular preference. Yet, I know for certain that they cannot all be true at the same time.

I have found an interesting link with the word 'hole' 'whole' and 'god.' Similarly, in ancient Scandinavian belief, the all-father hung himself, after which creation started to exist. In all ancient religions, a single god was considered an impossibility.

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield Your theory states that it is either 4 or 5 with a pyramid shape. What kind of things in nature and mathematics have structures like that? How does 4 or 5 explain phenomena in the universe and things like consciousness?

Abstracts do not exist in nature. The last time I saw an 11 walk by I had a drink too many. A country is an abstract (which only exist if it can be enforced). A painting is an abstract (of reality or not), and must be created first. Much in our lives are abstracts, non-natural. A pyramid is an abstract, it does not exist as such, but it is the abstract shape to explain all positions found in overall deliveries.

The theory of four only contains the natural aspects (male, female, young, old) (North, East, South, West) (Electricity, Magnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force), and the fifth part is the abstract part (human being) (direction) (force). As you may notice, gravity is not part of the four forces. I consider it the other side of the coin of the four mentioned. Put an unrelated man, a woman, a boy and a girl together, and within a week you'll have some family dynamics going on (if they are not allowed to walk away). Family dynamics or gravity — different perspective, same idea of inherent dual properties.

As said, good questions (and answers), Scott. I like the way you gather your thoughts. I hope you like mine.

[ScottAnfield]

Thank you for the kind comments Fredrick

I agree with your views on the binary system and the number 0. How can the 1 in the binary system be used both for the winner and the loser? The binary triads you mentioned seem to make more sense of things with many more possibilities. This can be the same as physically locating something with 3d coordinates.

I used the tripod as an example of the three theory. The object at the top is really made out of 3 components. If you look at a tripod from different angles, at certain angles, one leg is hidden by another leg. This can be any leg hidden by any other leg. This is tri-interconnectivity, by having two then you can always find the 3rd if it is unknown. This is similar to Pythagoren theorem, which looks as if it could be derived from the three theory.

Can you give me some examples of parts of the universe that are self-based onto themselves in your theory. How does this work? A unified field theory would require all fields to be united into a single field, but a TOE would not have to include a unified field theory. The TOE could explain why everything is unified, it may even be unified because it is not unified.

I'm sure that you can see threes, but why does the distinction need to be crude? I like your analogy of black, white and grey. Can you see why you need a third? Like you say, black and white are extremes and naturally this means that there is a mean between them, so extremes have to be 3 so that they are not concentrated into either one of the extremes. An elegant balance is needed. If you reason that black and white are on the same side of the coin and the colours are on the other side, why does this need to be? All colours would range in between black and white. Some argue that black and white aren't even colours, just the absence of colour. It is because, although black and white are opposites, they may not be either end of the colour spectrum. If, for instance, two opposites such as red and blue were to have a mean, it would be purple and if yellow and blue were opposites, then green would be the mean. To have all the colours in the spectrum, then you would have to make each opposite either end of the spectrum. However, there are 3 primary colours- red, blue and yellow. If you mix any of these 3 colours in the right proportions, you can make ANY colour. The binary triad, 1/0/1 etc, would allow any colour to be made, but only if there was a third number to represent the third colour. Maybe 0/1/2. To simplify this, you could just say 2/1, which is similar to 1/0, just one number higher for each.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield How can the 1 in the binary system be used both for the winner and the loser? The binary triads you mentioned seem to make more sense of things with many more possibilities. This can be the same as physically locating something with 3d coordinates.

Sometimes I find it difficult to exactly say what needs to be said, Scott, and my words may be crude. In the binary system a winner would for instance be described as 100111, and the loser as 100100. I mainly tried to say that the binary language makes use of 1s for both concepts. Winner and loser are complex statements in the binary language, while 1 and 0 are almost simply and naturally expressed as such in the decimal system.

In the binary system, the specific appointment of 1 is almost impossible to give, but in the decimal system there is a natural gravitation to it being the top or unification. You may find it interesting that some native peoples, such as the Piraha tribe of Amazonian Indians in Brazil, only count from one to three. In their language three is the same word as many. To simply explain their ideas of numbers, they use one for one person, two for two people, and three describes three or more people. These humans do not have to count any further because their base for everything is described in this framework of numerals. Most interestingly is that their number 1 is not an exact number 1 as we know it from the decimal system. Their 1 is more like the 1 from the binary system, as if a single person can never be seen as a single entity, for a single person cannot procreate and keep on living forever (and is therefore limited to ultimately only be an aspect of the group).

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield I used the tripod as an example of the three theory. The object at the top is really made out of 3 components. If you look at a tripod from different angles, at certain angles, one leg is hidden by another leg. This can be any leg hidden by any other leg. This is tri-interconnectivity, by having two then you can always find the 3rd if it is unknown. This is similar to Pythagoren theorem, which looks as if it could be derived from the three theory.

I agree. I mainly wanted to make clear that a tripod may not contain enough evidence to deliver a clear statement about the whole, yet it does give important insights. Can I ask you: would you describe your three theory as an insightful theory or as an fully explanatory theory?

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield Can you give me some examples of parts of the universe that are self-based onto themselves in your theory. How does this work? A unified field theory would require all fields to be united into a single field, but a TOE would not have to include a unified field theory. The TOE could explain why everything is unified, it may even be unified because it is not unified.

This may be the most important question you are asking me, Scott. I hope I can give an answer short enough to remain fresh, but deep enough to cover all territory.

The word came about when Nobody and I (we have very similar ideas, but we differ in some respects) were talking about the word 'absolute.' It turned out he was using the word absolute differently than I used it, and so I came to use the word self-based instead. The word yellow, for instance, is based/contained within the larger idea of colors, and not on, say, mathematics or electricity. Yellow is therefore not absolute (in that it cannot be used everywhere), but is absolutely a part of colors (based within this larger concept, having certain characteristics of that group, and totally real as such).

I will use religion as the example to show further distinctions of self-based ideas, because it is most obvious. While it is immediately clear that atheism cannot be placed in the same context as the belief in a god or gods, the distinction between the latter two is more complex. I have communicated with people who had no problem seeing one god and many gods as aspects of one and the same picture, but these people had made up their minds that there is only one god (and thus rejected the idea of independent multiple gods). So this is very basic for understanding the aspect of self-based, Scott. If you have made up your mind about religion in a certain way, then that is a self-based view from which you will view all other aspects. It is only natural to then also behave accordingly to your own ideas, and change your behavior if you change your ideas. To remain neutral, and see all three variations for what they are is very important to understanding the pyramid theory. I claim that no god and a god are as distinct and incompatible with each other as one god and multiple gods. Only after taking in certain positions do we adjust the other aspects to incorporate them into our view.

The most difficult part is possibly to understand the word abstract correctly. In the pyramid theory it is the top, and it contains aspects of unification, but it does not really 'exists.' The word nation, for instance, is obviously a word for something that exists, but in nature it really does not exist. It is a territory that is maintained by human beings. Yet some people are able to make their nation be the most important aspect to life there is: people are willing to die for their nation. It has become a self-based aspect of their life.

In nature there are lands and mountains and seas, but no nations. The largest entity to encompass all is earth. Earth is 'our' largest entity, and it is not an abstract; it is a reality. Yet for some people, the abstract nation can supersede the earth. Similarly, the abstract ideas of god or gods are placed by many on a higher plane than life. The former are abstracts, the latter is real. The only way for an abstract to become larger than life is if it has a self-based character. If religion were squarely based on life, we would not murder each other for a religion.

I can give you more examples of self-based, but it does not matter. If you belief that everything is unifiable then you will always regard the universe as such. If you belief that the universe is not unified, then you will always see it that way. Both positions are real positions, and they cannot be unified (which is my second argument why unification does not exist). Ultimately, there are two positions to anything that are not unifiable. Ergo, they are self-based.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield I'm sure that you can see threes, but why does the distinction need to be crude? I like your analogy of black, white and grey. Can you see why you need a third? Like you say, black and white are extremes and naturally this means that there is a mean between them, so extremes have to be 3 so that they are not concentrated into either one of the extremes. An elegant balance is needed. If you reason that black and white are on the same side of the coin and the colours are on the other side, why does this need to be? All colours would range in between black and white. Some argue that black and white aren't even colours, just the absence of colour. It is because, although black and white are opposites, they may not be either end of the colour spectrum. If, for instance, two opposites such as red and blue were to have a mean, it would be purple and if yellow and blue were opposites, then green would be the mean. To have all the colours in the spectrum, then you would have to make each opposite either end of the spectrum. However, there are 3 primary colours- red, blue and yellow. If you mix any of these 3 colours in the right proportions, you can make ANY colour. The binary triad, 1/0/1 etc, would allow any colour to be made, but only if there was a third number to represent the third colour. Maybe 0/1/2. To simplify this, you could just say 2/1, which is similar to 1/0, just one number higher for each.

Good arguments, Scott, and I would say there is a lot of fun to be had when viewing everything from this cruder perspective (sorry, the word crude may have a negative ring to it).

In the way we perceive time, for instance, we already have 2/1 (or 2/0) because we count in seconds and not in firsts. Still, even when we look at the aspects of just three colors doing the job (red, blue, and yellow) in reflective light, they do not cover the job when light is the source (red, blue, and green). An example is our television set: there is no yellow, but there is green. Even though it confirms the three-based aspect, it makes the overall delivery more complex than just three, because we must then give this difference a place in our overall delivery. The pyramid theory gives this a place, for the four corners are seen as blue and red as the grounded pair, and yellow and green as the transformational pair. Just like North and South have grounded positions (while retreating fully to their poles), and just like East and West not having grounds to retreat to, the red and blue colors have grounded (and I don't mind if you use the word self-based here) aspects, but yellow and green do not.

In a prism, I like it that blue and red take in opposite positions, while yellow and green are found right-smack in the middle.

In the pyramid of human beings, woman and men are the grounded oppositional pair, and age is the third that contains two oppositional aspects of young and old. If you want, you can see three in that, but I consider it four (with the fifth overall position that is an abstract, such as human being, something that does not exist, and nevertheless exists). It doesn't exist, for no human being can be young, old, male, and female all at the same time. It does exist, but only when we all are (self-based) human beings.

I definitively agree with you that black and white are not each others opposite. White and all colors find themselves in opposition to black (lack of light/reflection). So, next to green, black is also the opposite of red. I see white more as the culmination of the various colors than as a color all by itself.

I am placing black/gray/white on one side, and black/colors/white on the other side simply because they deliver two ways for looking at one and the same view. As in my reply right above, I see a self-based distinction in the scheme of colors/light. The red, blue and green are based on light as the immediate source, while red, blue and yellow are based on light as the indirect source. I would imagine that if the properties are different that we should not mix them into a single scheme (except as an abstract such as a pyramid theory). Same way, I'd like to keep the black-gray-white view separate. Yet I am placing them all on the same coin (though black does actually not belong to the coin itself).

One more thing about abstracts: they are recognizable as singular entities. We say that the nation declares a war on drugs, the family goes to the beach and that god is good. The group in general is seen as a single entity in language. In English there are a few exceptions: one can say that the police are coming, but in most other languages one would say that the police is coming. Abstracts are often general entities containing a plural character, but nevertheless the singular verb is used.

Thank you for asking good questions. I tend to quarrel about issues more rather than ask good questions; a nasty habit. I am working on changing that. I hope you find reasons in my answers to reply your views further.

[purveyor of knowledge]

One has found some more examples of the three theory.

In a standard rock group there are three musicians: a drummer a basist and a guitarist
two of them are similar and one is different

Somebody once said that in college there are the three S's: Sleep, Social and Study
one of them must be sacrificed (such that two will be similar)

Michael Evans has discovered the simplest platonic solid and it has three faces. This becomes possible when you allow the platonic solids to have curved lines. When you shine light through the simplest platonic solid a pattern of DNA emerges. One has witnessed this personally last summer.

-POK