You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
In this thread, I'd like to deliver the definitive theory of everything as being based on pentaism which includes an empty spot (=six spots, five contents). If you know me from postings on other threads, I obviously cannot do it alone: I need your help!
I claim to have scientific information, yet the nature of the empty spot (and of nothing) makes it difficult to convince others of the truth of pentaism. But what opponents mainly use to undermine this delivery is basically claiming I have nothing that can be qualified as scientific. Yet irony of ironies, nothing is exactly what I deliver. So, what I deliver to create the pentaist theory is used to undermine the theory, in effect they are declaring the theory valid while actually trying to invalidate it. That's the main problem I encounter: those who reject pentaism do so on the grounds of pentaism.
Basically, I am asking your help to have pentaism be recognized as a toe (either as the toe or at least one of the toes). The web page http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html provides the information to substantiate pentaism. Can you help?
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.
To substantiate pentaism in a different way, here is a further (at length) delivery on the basic hexa-based matrix.
More than 22 centuries ago, Aristosthenes gave the world his delivery on the prime numbers. Many have wondered about the nature of prime numbers, and many deliveries have been written about prime numbers since. I take a different look at prime numbers and use their sequencing as the explanatory basis for all numbers; through the prime numbers I was able to discover a special matrix of all numbers.
First of all, the matrix is indeed very much like that familiar six-number based matrix in which prime numbers are most often visualized — containing all numbers and repeating the specific prime number positions in rows of six. The six-number based matrix discussed in this article is quite peculiar, it is not unlike the standard delivery, but it is different in one particular position. Where any subsequent deliveries of this matrix deliver six numbers with each having contents, the very first delivery is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (and not the 'usual' delivery of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The first delivery of the matrix therefore has six numbers with only five of them having actual contents, and one number having no contents. As said, all subsequent deliveries have six numbers — and those all come with contents.
It is an open secret: many of us like to avoid the subject matter of number zero — especially in a scientific realm — for it has often nothing but confusion to add. But in this case of a matrix of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the 0 shows the very important empty position. The empty position occurs only once, and is subsequently filled up in each following round of this matrix, for instance, with 6 — in 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Any number divisible by 6 in any 6-pack is taking up this specific position in the matrix.
To understand the significance of the first line, and following this matrix further in light of the prime numbers, it is important to ask — once again — if the number 1 is really not a prime number. Many may think we have gone down this road before, and that we should not re-address this issue. Yet knowing the nature of prime numbers is vital to understanding the matrix of six positions. The first aspect to remember is that prime numbers are numbers that cannot be divided by more than two numbers; they are divisible two times only as in just by themselves and 1. The fundamental context for prime numbers is therefore the lack of even a third option to multiply a number and then getting to a prime number. This simple set up reveals why number 1 is special.
Although it is true that 1 can be divided only by itself, it is also the square of itself, and it therefore doesn't follow the rule of a prime because a prime number can never be the square of any number. Yet this peculiar aspect helps direct our attention to the true nature of prime numbers. Where both the prime numbers and the number 1 have two parts available for multiplication (the number itself and 1), the number 1 differs from them in that not one, but both parts of multiplication can be used again and again without changing the result (1 x 1 leads to the same result as 1 x 1 x 1 x 1). The prime numbers, however, deliver only an identical result when one of the two numbers is multiplied, and not the other. When multiplying with 1 several times over, for instance, as in 1 x 1 x 1 x 7, this always results in an outcome of the prime number, an unchanged outcome no matter the number of times we multiply with 1. Yet when multiplying the other part, for instance in 1 x 7 x 7 x 7, any further multiplication with 7 already leads to the answer being no longer the same result. What we consider to be prime numbers are numbers that all have one part (and one part only) that can be used over and over again without changing the outcome. Yet having this infinitive aspect existing twice (or ad infinitum) in number 1 explains the duality that Euclid used in the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to declare 1 a non-prime number. What 1 is really only guilty of, though, is containing the fundamental character of a prime number twice. It is a fascinating number — with 1 being both the number itself, and the square of itself. A doubled prime phenomenon is captured within this one number.
Not just number 1, but the entire matrix has a dual character. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, since Aristotle already declared our universe to be one of a dual nature. Yet Aristotle's delivery of an absence of a third way is incomplete. The first indications that reality is not just duality-based, of course, are the plentiful deliveries of threes on for instance the threes.com website — threes appear to be everywhere. But that could easily be explained by the six-number basis, with pairs of threes (2 X 3 = 6) still fitting the Aristotelian way. Aristotle showed us a context that was easy to grasp, and gave us a perspective that was easy to use in our daily life. But it made capturing reality from an overall perspective more difficult. Only when Rotterdam-born intuitionistic mathematician L.E.J. Brouwer (1881-1966) provided a way out, by showing that a third way can exist, only then did a full vision become available. Still, many important figures on our earth have shown that up to this day it is hard to give up on the pure Aristotelian view when stating that "if you are not with me, you are against me."
What Brouwer showed was that a third way is indeed possible under the condition that it has nothing to do with the proposed duality. An easy example is the gender neutral bacteria placed next to the male/female division of the world. Though many would agree with Aristotle that there is only duality — if you are not male, you are female! — a bacteria is not captured by the male/female division of our reality at all. A similar quick overall view is, for instance, the realm of answers with 'yes' in opposition to 'no.' But if we claim these two answers to be all there is, then a full delivery has been blocked from view. The overall delivery requires an important position for no 'answer' as well. A third position is possible if it is based on any kind of not-acknowledging the duality. The absence of a third way Aristotle proposed is incorrect, yet it only needs altering slightly to become correct: absence is the third way.
Going back to the matrix of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and following Aristotle's creed on duality, we can split these six number right down the middle in two sets of three: [ 0, 1, 2 ] and [ 3, 4, 5 ]. The special condition of the empty position is captured only in the first set of three. And Aristotle's delivery exists then right there in this first set, for here we find the two numbers with contents of 1 in opposition to 2. As most of us will agree, the empty position is not really there, which holds especially true as long as we are engaged in believing that either just 1 or just 2 holds the truth; so we basically end up with just two positions with claims of being seen as paramount. Let's translate these two numbers in words. Though always a dangerous step in science (one can easily become the butt of jokes), most likely not many people will see any problem viewing 1 as unity and 2 as the symbol for duality. If there were ever two numbers totally in conflict with each other, then these are the two numbers. If we believe in unity then duality is the 'evil' number that needs to be put in a minor second position, but if we insist all is based on diversity, then unity is unreal and cannot exist except as a man-made condition — an abstract. Either way, the empty position is declared to be unimportant, and that is ultimately done incorrectly. Only all three positions, 0, 1, and 2, deliver us a basic set of overall conflicting positions: empty, unity, and diversity. This full set of three numbers [ 0, 1, 2 ] supports both Aristotle's view fully, while also explaining Brouwer's intuitionistic delivery at the same time.
If three numbers can deliver the basics, why then should we see six numbers as the matrix instead? The matrix of six numbers captures the full integrity of both unity and duality in mutually enforcing ways, with using the empty spot to 'outplay' the other number. A duel automatically follows when both numbers 'try to overtake' that empty spot for their own gain. Where 1 can be seen as unity, the number 5 is subsequently used as the number representing the whole, as the concept that enforces the idea of unity. Confronted with duality and diversity, number 1 is by itself not enough to do the trick of capturing all. Next to that, number 1 can be seen as static, immobile, unrealistic, so the number 5 as the fully encompassing number comes to the rescue. Just like the synergistic whole being more than the parts, number 5 at the end of the six-pack of this matrix is more than the sum of the previous members. Synergy is that additional aspect of the whole set that now exists, though nothing in specific was added. As an example of synergy, a bicycle is a lot more than the identical number of separate bike parts all laid out on a floor. And like five fingers to a hand, the thumb may represent 1, but it is number 5 that represents the entire dexterity set. Singularity exists in specifics, but requires the also singular overall position that encompasses the separate parts.
Well, doesn't that prove duality's point? If number 1 cannot fully express the whole, and 5 must come to the rescue, we have ended up with 2 numbers expressing the whole! Should we then not see each number as a specific part, and as such duality and diversity are then truly the basic grounds of our universe. And if that is the case that singularity cannot exist in our universe, wouldn't then only fools claim in the name of science that something as strange as singularity truly exists?
Too bad the number zero spoils the perfect end game here too. With an escape hatch for 1 created by zero, duality is not the full realm of reality either, simply because duality cannot claim the empty spot all the time. The singular overall picture of 5 is powerful enough to capture duality, but for the idea of duality one can claim that nothing was added here, and 4 is all there is. Truthfully though, the empty position cannot be captured by either 1 or 2; it can be taken in by either one, but only for as long as that position is guarded and enforced.
Letting go of guarding any powerful position, that position of power becomes either empty (and unimportant) or it will simply become enforced by guards of the opposing camp. So, only the six numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 together deliver the entire scheme. Those who read my other posts know these numbers point to a very peculiar and very familiar construct of positions of a pyramid. For those interested in the full prime number delivery, I must refer to pentapublishing.com.
The basic numbers to capture our reality is then 5, while the basic number of positions is 6. The six positions contain 1/ the empty spot, 2/ the singularity that is found with both 1 and 5, and 3/ the duality that is captured by 2 and 4. Truly, the only odd number in this set is 3. An independent three really does not exist; it should be considered the freebie of the matrix. If three is found to exist, it exists only as part of a series, such as the earth being the third rock from the sun. If we find an apparent three, something special must be going on. An 'explanation' why three is so fascinating can be found looking at the first three numbers of the matrix again; adding up these numbers [ 0, 1, 2 ] results in an outcome of three as well, creating an illusory moment of perfection. In reality, no condition exists where only three equal parts belong to the same condition. That is, except when the empty set is part of the group.
As a last interesting point, people who are familiar with the prime numbers know about the two versions in which they are most often portrayed. Prime numbers are placed often either in a six number pack or a 30-number grouping. It is peculiar that these two different sets of numbers capture the prime numbers so well. An explanation why these two sets are most appropriate has not been given until now. The matrix of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 can explain the importance of both versions. With a six-number based matrix that starts out with one of the six numbers not having any contents, the multiplication of numbers with contents is five times six. With trying to make prime numbers appear in almost neatly conditioned positions, we find that the sequence of six numbers and the sequence of 5 x 6 numbers are the best ways to do so.
I hope this further explains how pentaism is constructed. As mentioned in the introduction, the pentaist theory can really use your help. Those who claim the pentaist evidence is not scientific, use arguments to undermine it that basically are forms of the pentaist evidence.
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 did a search on pentaism on yahoo and found no hits. One of the first time that has happened to me. A search on google yielded a synopsis of a book entitled PROOF OF NOTHING THEORY OF EVERYTHING, by Fredrick Schermer. Is that you?
I thought duality could explain everything. 0/1 or the binary code surely can represent everything, written or imagined.
Also when I tried to go to your figures or links in the above post all I got was a faint image in the upper left hand corner.
I did a search on pentaism on yahoo and found no hits. One of the first time that has happened to me. A search on google yielded a synopsis of a book entitled PROOF OF NOTHING THEORY OF EVERYTHING, by Fredrick Schermer. Is that you?
I thought duality could explain everything. 0/1 or the binary code surely can represent everything, written or imagined.
Also when I tried to go to your figures or links in the above post all I got was a faint image in the upper left hand corner.
Hi Pat and Austin,
Pentagon, dualism, mix the two together and you get pentaism. Actually, I googled it and got four replies (two were referring to this thread, though, so now we know how quickly google is updated). The third one was on my book ("The Proof of Nothing" - internet-version: "In Search of a Cyclops"), while the fourth was on Erotic Colour Prints of the Ming period. I haven't checked that one out yet!
And yes, the binary system can be used to deliver everything, as is possible with any system that is complete in itself. However, if you read my delivery in this thread, Pat, understanding duality is only the beginning to understanding the whole.
Indeed, the figures from the site can come up as somewhat warped if they were not opened up in full format. If you open up the window to full view then they come up fine. I'll have to sit and think about fixing this little piece of inconvenience. Thank you for letting me know.
And as always, Austin, you deliver perspectives that make sense on various levels. But I hope the two of you heard what I am asking. This post is both an outright challenge to those who want to undermine the scientific delivery given in Chapter 5 of my book as it is a cry for help; I am tired of others not getting the essence of it, finding the phenomenon of nothing unimportant in the large scheme, or approve of the idea without seeing the need to propagate the idea. The nature of the phenomenon of nothing makes it understandable that I get 'nothing' in return, but I have worked on getting the message out a real long time, and the work or the idea should have been recognized by now. Understandably as wel, it is difficult to create a strong bond around an issue in which nothing is a fundamental aspect.
And this may seem a weird action then, Austin, to 'challenge' your post in this thread in trying to make a 0 - 5 fit into a single larger picture. It is not that I see anything wrong with it, but your delivery is not complete in itself. As soon as we assign a singular meaning to a number, the rest will have to follow based on that assignment. And as such your delivery is fine and correct. Yet a different assignment is also possible using the exact same number.
Let me get to the point. One can, for instance, say that Time = 3, but one can also say that Time = 0 (or 1, 2, or 5). What I am trying to convey is that you delivered an overall experience that contains all the elements, but by wanting to complete the delivery within a specific framework, you did not assign all characteristics to the actual elements (of being versatile to some extent), in essence, preventing different frameworks to be delivered that are just as true. As an example, in Musical Chairs only one person can sit in a chair, but that does not make the chair that person's possession. To deliver how the chairs are taken in after the music stopped and before the music starts up again does not fully explain how Musical Chairs is played: the chairs are basically available to all, but in each round one player gets nothing. I realize this is just very small potatoes, but the difference between understanding the toe and not understanding the toe is actually as small as sitting in a chair and not possessing the chair. I hope you appreciate I want to fully see eye to eye on pentaism with you.
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.
My great reasoning was that '0' is fixed as separation, '5' is fixed as the overall, and '1'/'2' are fixed as duality as you proposed. That leaves only '3'/'4' or '4'/'3' for Time.
I'l have to take some time to try to undermine "nothing", but certainly opposites have to be separated, one would think.
Here's my enhanced theory of pentaism (ha ha) that I found on my old garage wall. Maybe I made it in drafting class. It needs a title and an interpretation.
That is definitively a valuable piece you have there; I love it.
Thank you for providing me the underlying thoughts, because they quickly tell me where to find the difference of people sitting on chairs and people possessing the chairs. You mention that you consider '0' to be fixed as separation, and though I agree with you, I consider it more than just the separator sitting nicely between the pieces. It is also the location that can be "taken in" by someone or something else.
In the introduction I try to show that the matrix is the basis, and then if one wishes the first three numbers deliver the three overall perspectives that are always causing trouble: 0, 1, and 2. Let me use the example here of religion to further explain these three, not because it is the best way to deliver a scientific concept, but because we are all so familiar with them.
The number 0 would of course be the number to describe the religious concept of the atheist. 1 would deliver the number for believers in a monotheistic god, while 2 is used for those who do believe in gods, but not in a single god.
Though we indeed need 3, 4, and 5 to make the story complete about all the possibilities to believe, what is most important here is that each number takes in the position of the whole. Those believing in one or more gods, simply make the atheist be the person not (0) understanding how everything fits together. The atheist would disagree and vents especially against the monotheist and claims that the position of 1 to be the whole in which there is no god. The atheist will say that the monotheist has no (0) evidence. Between the monotheist and the polytheist yet a different battle is going on where the monotheist claims 2 to be an inferior idea, worthy of no (0) attention, while the polytheist claims that there must always be separation (0), so the whole (1) is not holy whole.
Then it is possible to see that in all three versions 0, 1, and 2 are used, but they are all used differently for each their own perspective. That is 3 times 3 is 9 already, with some of these 9 the same for some people or even for all people. Add 3, 4, and 5 to the mix, and you can understand how easy it is to get mixed up about the entire set, while at the same time it should then also be quite obvious how complicated it is to figure it all out.
As you may remember, professor Rubik invented the cube with the 6 color fields as a learning tool for his class, not knowing that once the wheels had been turned how difficult it was going to be to get the cube back in order. And that may be a good example to show that once the path is discovered, it is basically "a piece of cake." Getting the 6 color fields (if you wish you can call these color fields 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) of the Rubik's Cube all lined up again is now quite easy for some, for those who learned how it all works. They are now holding silly funny little competitions on who is fastest, and all of them can do the trick under twenty seconds. Einstein said that once the toe was known, a three year old could understand it. The Rubik's cube is quite complex, but the basics are as simple as 1, 2, 3 (0, 1, 2).
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 think that your primes' math and the underlying series does indeed show that '0' is necessary and that we can probably show separation in nature after Materialization, but how do we show that it must carry through to 'before' Materialization? Because more than one fundamental wouldn't have survived as such if all were ONE beforehand?
I think that your primes' math and the underlying series does indeed show that '0' is necessary and that we can probably show separation in nature after Materialization, but how do we show that it must carry through to 'before' Materialization? Because more than one fundamental wouldn't have survived as such if all were ONE beforehand?
What was before the Big Bang cannot be told in specifics, Austin, only in half-vague descriptions. However, though nothing was not actively present prior to the Big Bang, the potential for nothing was already there, otherwise it could not have started to play its important role.
To say this in a different way, while also trying to satisfy those who want to see nothing at all in the phenomenon of nothing, the condition of 'letting go' or 'separation' is required in the pre-Big Bang state, otherwise the Big Bang could not have successfully lead to the universe in which separation is paramount. Personally, I believe the pre-BB condition needed to be stressful to such an extent that an automatic trigger for additional separation(s) would be in place right after the first minor "letting go."
So, without knowing the true nature of the pre-Big Bang, it is possible to state that from our perspective that was a situation of ONE, but placed under such conditions that separation became paramount. Important to note here is that this is an explanation, given just from our perspective. Parts of the pre-BB could have remained in rest mode, not partaking in the stressful situation. It is good to keep in mind that our words and concepts are from after the BB, so only half-vague and rudimentary conditions can be described.
The fundamentals of our universe are therefore based on themselves within this universe; they do not belong to the fundamental(s) of the pre-BB. It is almost like democracy in which a nation is not based on a god-given precept nor on foreign royalty proclaiming a nation to exist, but simply on the people living in that nation themselves. The fundamentals of our universe are self-based, though they (but not all of them) do bump into each other of course.
To show you how old this delivery already is, the Norse describe this image to us in their ancient delivery of their gods. Their all-father Odin committed suicide on the tree-of-life to discover true nature, and after that miraculous and quite unnatural act he was still alive, no longer alone/surrounded by the other gods. Odin himself became then one of these gods, so it can be seen as a step down from his previous position in which he was everything - or if you wish a step up in the new situation in which he was no longer alone. His singularity was sacrificed in the act.
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.
Linear Mode