Do you have a visualization of that, POK, or can you describe in words how when you shine light through the simplest platonic solid a pattern of DNA emerges?
Also, would you describe DNA as something that in reality is three parts or three-partitioned?
Thank you Fredrick. I agree it is totally fascinating and awesome. I do not have a visualization myself but this is what I wrote about it in my journal.
I hope Scott doesn't mind me putting this in his thread, seeing as how it does relate completely to the theory of three since the simplest platonic solid which Michael R Evans discovered is the one with the fewest sides - 3. Scott are you out there still?
Journal entry: I've just gotten done taking a journey to the space in between (www.spaceclusters.org). Michael Evans is a man of visionary proportions - a mystic of sorts. When I arrived he greeted me with an air that is simply to imply one of great stature and fortitude. His wife is loving and kind, and his son is bright and talented. He shows me things people have never seen before. A new toy to study light - an ingenious invention that is a combination of the two greatest optical inventions in history - the prism and the lens. Both of them combined together to create a shape so dynamic that the light shining through creates a morphing holograph of intriguing natural shapes. At one point the holographic image appears as a perfect sea-shell, but rotate the prism lens and it twists and morphs to become an infinity sign. Twist again, and the image of a DNA helix is revealed.
So that's kind of a description in my prose style. I hope Mike won't get mad at me for posting this. Mike are you reading this? Anyway, me and Mike are working on getting an article published about it in the Journal of Geometry and Physics. Michael made his own thread here on TOE and in fact that's how I met him and he invited me out to his lab in Laguna Beach. It was awesome. THanks Robert for making this site!
Well, that spikes my curiosity a lot, POK, thanks for that additional information. Looking at the picture at his website, I am reminded of a pyramid!
Fredrick
P.S. Nice prose!
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Thank you Fredrick. I agree it is totally fascinating and awesome. I do not have a visualization myself but this is what I wrote about it in my journal.
I hope Scott doesn't mind me putting this in his thread, seeing as how it does relate completely to the theory of three since the simplest platonic solid which Michael R Evans discovered is the one with the fewest sides - 3. Scott are you out there still?
Journal entry: I've just gotten done taking a journey to the space in between (www.spaceclusters.org). Michael Evans is a man of visionary proportions - a mystic of sorts. When I arrived he greeted me with an air that is simply to imply one of great stature and fortitude. His wife is loving and kind, and his son is bright and talented. He shows me things people have never seen before. A new toy to study light - an ingenious invention that is a combination of the two greatest optical inventions in history - the prism and the lens. Both of them combined together to create a shape so dynamic that the light shining through creates a morphing holograph of intriguing natural shapes. At one point the holographic image appears as a perfect sea-shell, but rotate the prism lens and it twists and morphs to become an infinity sign. Twist again, and the image of a DNA helix is revealed.
So that's kind of a description in my prose style. I hope Mike won't get mad at me for posting this. Mike are you reading this? Anyway, me and Mike are working on getting an article published about it in the Journal of Geometry and Physics. Michael made his own thread here on TOE and in fact that's how I met him and he invited me out to his lab in Laguna Beach. It was awesome. THanks Robert for making this site!
He calls his shape the trion re and he has predicted it is the actual shape of a photon. I think he's right friends.
-Purveyor
Hi Purveyor,
I read your post with interest. Thank you for giving me more details and also sites to go to.
I am sorry that you are banned (I do not know if this is a temporary measure or not), because I actually wanted to communicate more with you about the 1/0 and 0/1 - thing. I am curious to know what you think of the following, or how you would see it.
It is my understanding that everything we humans created, such as words, numbers, paintings and stories, but also philosophies and religions are on some level abstracts. They deliver us a view on a perceived reality from a specific perspective. That can be truly helpful, yet each abstract or abstraction operates according to its own conditions. Paintings need paint and a canvas, and with just that we cannot expect them to become audible all of a sudden. And the spoken word needs speakers and listeners, but this goes well only when both belong to the same particular language.
I hope you can see where I am going. If you state something, using 1 and 0, then you are using mathematics. So, you have to follow the rules of mathematics. And that is what I want to ask you about. When you are using 1 and 0, in what specific mathematical language are you speaking? I hope you understand that this is not a question to be taken lightly, because it has severe consequences for the logic behind the two numbers.
Should I read your 1 and 0 as members of the binary system, or should I read them as members of the decimal system?
I am really interested to hear what the framework is in which you are using these numbers. I have been trying to think if there is another framework next to the binary system and the decimal system, but I couldn't come up with any that do not contain the basic set-up and differences of these two. Possibly you know a mathematical framework that uses 1 and 0 in a different way than the binary and decimal system.
Let me explain why this interests me. If you are using the 1 and 0 from the binary language, then I must note that this language does not come with an abstract 1 and 0 to be used as such. The binary language is a language based on ones and zeros. Please note that these are plural nouns. The importance is that there is no single zero or a single 1 in the binary language with specific meaning as such, except when we point to the two numbers (numbers that do as such not portray any information) that we use in this language; otherwise we are forced to conclude this is indeed a system based on ones and zeros.
If I were to write the whole of everything in the binary language, I would have to write that with at least two 1s, but more likely it would be something like 111111111111111111111111111111 (probably even longer than that). The nothing could indeed be written with a single 0, but I would suggest that should not be done. Rather I'd make it have as many zeros as the whole has ones. Still, it is possible. Yet to write the whole as just a single 1 would be terribly improper.
The binary system is made up of unspecified 1s, and only through using them in certain patterns and positions (with or without zeros) do they receive any meaning. A single 1, the almighty 1, does not exist in the binary language.
That leaves me to think that you must be using 1 and 0 in the decimal system. However, I bump into problems then as well — though of a different nature. Because, what happened to 2, 3, 4, and the others in your overall delivery? Where are they? What position do the other numbers have? Even if I were to relax the mathematical requirements for a moment, and say, okay, let's talk about 1 and 0 from the decimal system as if they state everything and nothing, then still I bump into problems. The 1 in the decimal system is a number known as unity. Unity requires various members of course. One cannot say that a single person was united, but one can say that a group of people were united — and bravely fought off the enemy. One (1) as unity is a condition with a plural nature. It cannot stand for the whole as a united single being; it can only stand for the whole as a feature of everything — a delivery of everything, but everything itself is not captured by the number 1. Everything as 1 is merely an abstraction, and not the real deal.
Similarly, the 1 from the decimal system is also known to present the winner, and everyone else the loser. But I think it goes too far to state that all kinds of losers are then satisfactorily covered under the number zero. If 1 means 'first' then that automatically requires others in the picture, such as second, third, etc. It is not possible to lay this position of first on top of everything, do you agree? To have a first, one must have others. The number 1 of the decimal system is not a number that can stand on its own; it requires others.
Please, POK, I have no problem understanding that 1 can be seen as the whole. Yet if I do so, I also know that there is no 0. One single number that represents all could indeed be 1, but it requires that there are no other numbers. If 1 is the whole, then that is all there is. If there is a zero, it is included in that whole, and should then also not be used in opposition to the 1, because it does not belong to the same level.
So, that's my question to you. What is the framework in which 1 and 0 are indeed the delivering entities of what you are saying that they are delivering?
If needed, you can contact me through my publisher: Penta Publishing. They will forward your email to me immediately.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Some people may indeed be confused about seeing the whole as covered by a single 1, because many automatically see a zero next to it, even when there is no 0 on that level. Instead, this automatism prevents them from seeing what they are doing. They confuse the universal 1 as part of the binary system. Unfortunately, they also use the universal 1 together with a lower level 0 as if these two numbers could be used as just those two numbers portraying the whole and the nothing. It can't be used that way.
A universal state of 1 has no other numbers to it, not even a zero, at least at that specific overall level. However, once we open up the universal 1, and look at all the details, we find the binary system and the decimal system (in which zero has its particular place, and different kinds of 1s have their place). The whole is the whole, everything included; even that what is not there (for instance, the very meaningful situation of lacking money is very much part and parcel of our universe).
Yet please remember, that numbers are abstracts. A number is nothing but a number until we assign a meaning to it.
So, a quick rerun:
Mathematically I can only distinguish three versions:
* The binary system (of ones and zeros)
* The decimal system (of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etcetera)
* The singular state (with 1 as the only member)
Many people are confused about when to use all this mathematical terminology correctly, and you can find quite often that the numbers are used in various formats at the same time. Not many people check if their use of 1 (and of 0) is appropriate. Interestingly, though the universal 1 is the largest number imaginable, there is very little we can do with it. It is very much like Brahman; it's there, but other than being the source and/or the large background picture to everything, its story is rather short and simple.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I do not know if you remember my chapter 5 with the mathematical information (I'll post it again for two weeks at http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html ), but the matrix of the prime numbers shown therein has not 1 as the number representing the whole, but 5. I think that is a better number. It also shows that the whole is a concept, an idea, that nevertheless is only based on details.
I know that you and Nobody have been sparring about the 1/0 and 0/1 - thing, so I hope you get what I am saying. I think it is easy to get things confused. If I read your words back, they are like saying about 1 and 0 that the whole is the car plus the interior space. One might as well have said that the whole is the car plus the steering wheel. The steering wheel is already included in the whole named 'car' and mentioning the steering wheel separately is superfluous. The same for the interior space. Mentioning it separately is superfluous, because it is already part of the whole. Only on the detailed level should that question come up, yet at that level the word 'car' cannot be used. The word 'car' belongs to a different level, not the detailed level.
I have to say I find this interesting. While I often find myself more drawn towards Nobody's camp than to Lloyd's, I have to say that Lloyd was standing firm for the right reasons. And it is not that I changed my mind on anything, I just see again how words and concepts — and not using them correctly — are at the heart of the conflict. If you remember, I mentioned that the tribes discussing/working on the Tower of Babel must have had the same problems.
And unfortunately there isn't much we can do with the whole, it gets only interesting at the detailed level. Also, I must state again that it is an abstract. Even though it is a real concept, containing everything and nothing within, it is still only a concept. No math can be used on it, no big conclusions can derived from it, no singularity can be found because of it.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
the universal 1 is the largest number imaginable, there is very little we can do without it. It is very much like Brahman; it's there, but other than being the source and/or the large background picture to everything, its story is rather short and simple.
Thank you for the reply Fredrick. Always remember one thing Fredrick. The simplest explanation is also the most complex.
The system of math I've discovered is the same as the regular system of math except for one small difference. 0 is the number that is undefined, not it's reciprocal.
Maybe we should move this conversation to a different thread but here's the entire mathematical system anyway, for your viewing pleasure.
ps. this circle of irony explains theoretically what preceded the big bang as well as what will happen after the big rip. By considering the combined ramifications of QM and GR it becomes readily apparent. THe universe will reverse when two points in space seperated by a planck distance begin expanding away from eachother at greater than TSOL.
It is good to have you back at the site. I have to warn you, though, after this little breakthrough I had on the 1/0 and 0/1-thing, I am no longer going to take any number at face value anymore. The most important aspect is the context, because it is the context that declares the actual value of a number or word.
As you can read, I acknowledge the binary system, the decimal system, and the general approach to the number 1. I do no longer use 1 meaning the whole in the same context as 0 meaning no value anymore, because they do not belong to the same level.
I guess I have to repeat my question to you: in what context do your numbers take place? If undeclared, I must consider them as just abstracts, and then they actually don't capture any real value anymore. Then they become like modern paintings that mean one thing to one person and another thing to another person. Just because we can paint, does not mean a meaning was captured in the painting.
I hope I am not upsetting you with this information. I am glad you are back.
P.S. Scott has not replied to this thread, so is it still all about three?
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
With all due respect please help me understand, the point of your question. In the Circle of Irony the context of the number 1/0 is shown with respect to all the other numbers. That is it's context.
I realize whole-heartedly that 1/0 is just an abstract symbol, but what it represents is real. I have discovered a better symbol to represent what it represents so maybe this can help you understand. This is not an abstract symbol, for it is a direct representation.
Do you see how this symbol represents the three theory? It is a unicursal line creating the illusion of three circles. Two of the circles are similar, and one is different. Do you like?
Linear Mode
