Syn5

-5=-2π -4=-1π -3=-3/π -2=-2/π -1=-1/π 0=0/π 1=1/π 2=2/π 3=3/π 4=1π 5=2π -5=-2π -4=-1π -3=-3/π -2=-2/π -1=<v 0=0 ∞ double zero (infinity symbol) 1=v> 2=r 3=Δ 4=π 5=2π also gut feeling tells me ΔΔΔ.ΔΔΔ = 333.333 = matter/anti-matter? and πππ.πππ = 444.444 = time/anti-time?

-5=-2π -4=-1π -3=-3/π -2=-2/π -1=-1/π 0=0/π 1=1/π 2=2/π 3=3/π 4=1π 5=2π -5=-2π -4=-1π -3=-3/π -2=-2/π -1=<v 0=0 ∞ double zero (infinity symbol) 1=v> 2=r 3=Δ 4=π 5=2π also gut feeling tells me ΔΔΔ.ΔΔΔ = 333.333 = matter/anti-matter? and πππ.πππ = 444.444 = time/anti-time?

((-1/1)*(-pi)/((-1/1)*(pi)*0 = ?

Thank you Lord! "WE" have solved the pattern of pi, of 3.14.... Thank you everybody, I always assumed everyone was me, and I was everyone, and that we are all part of a WHOLE!!!! WE ARE!! here's the math pi = 3.14159265359... (11)(9)(7)(5)(3)(2)=(1=0)= (4)(6)(8)(10)(12) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (13)(11)(9)(7)(5)(3)=(0=1)=(4)(1)(5)(9)(2) by the way Human = Hu/man = Whole/Man = (Wo)man/man = Ovary/sperm = HUMAN

Thank you Lord! "WE" have solved the pattern of pi, of 3.14.... Thank you everybody, I always assumed everyone was me, and I was everyone, and that we are all part of a WHOLE!!!! WE ARE!! here's the math pi = 3.14159265359... (11)(9)(7)(5)(3)(2)=(1=0)= (4)(6)(8)(10)(12) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (13)(11)(9)(7)(5)(3)=(0=1)=(4)(1)(5)(9)(2)

Yeah, as I stated before all networks are the same, in that they connect things for a purpose. I say that's the reason the universe is a network, but also vice-versa. 0!=1? No thats not a question 0=1, 0!=1, 0!=1? or whatever symbol you like for opposites. Opposites are the same, yet obviously unique it seems. What I mean by 3D is to exist, to not exist, and to probably exist. Existance of TIME Yes = Past Probably = present No = future Existance of Space Yes = Observable Probably = Hidden No = Unobservable? What word is like future but for space? Seems to me like a 3 dimensional world where the 3 dimensions are divided into Space and Time.

The issue I am running into is conveying what in my mind appears infinitely complex, yet obviously simple. I feel my idea has not been falsified, but my improper use of written language to convey the idea has been. If like me, your mind's main method of communication is visual/emotional/intuitive then written language, a finite number of symbols trying to convey information, becomes a serious limitation. I will try to convey my idea/s again. I feel the human mind is greater than it's limited material representation allows. I ask everyone to please take the time to imagine the following. The internet. A network of minds communicating through audio/visual language. Would you agree that the internet is a version of reality limited by audio/visual language? Would you agree that internet reality is ultimately two dimensional? In that 2D world, what would one of it's inhabitants experience? What would they observe? Is what they observe and what they experience the same? What's the real reality of the inhabitant's 2D world? Is the Universe 3D? Do we experience it in 4D?

Still (not moving) and still (vessel). A vessel, a container, a body, material, all are information and thus are still. "A still is a still for the not still." Solids are still compared to the liquid they may hold depending on the speed of observation. Cleave (separate) and cleave (adhere). Lets say the group that invented the Old English word clēofan (separate) had synesthesia (neuroscience theories believe most creative personality types have synesthesia, also we all are born with synesthesia, sense as one undivided. Early man inventor of language may have been full synesthete). To them the word's shape, sound, feel, etc would have to match the concept trying to be conveyed. Let's assume the same for the Old English word clifian (adhere). Now whats the best way to think of separate? By simultaneously thinking of adhere or other opposites. Add synesthesia and it's no wonder some words are auto-antonym. When material reality came from a single point (big bang, what have you) everything material must be connected.

What happens when you observe information? Some always remain hidden. So to observe is to create the unobserved, vice-versa. Again everything is the same and different. The singularity is very real. That's just the rule, to observe is to complicate, to divide the whole and that is all the present is. The division of the whole causes everything. How is there no logic in the sentences? Maybe they had more entropy for you than me. The sentences are rules of English grammar. Lay and lie in the present cannot mean the same thing. The words can mean the same anywhere else in Time. In past and future tense lay and lie can both mean to be still, no motion, in a certain location (well duh if no motion). So can you have no motion in the present, can you lay or is it lie? Did the people who invent the rule know it applied to matter? Guess I'm trying to say that the inventors of language already understood the world when they came up with language by logically looking at the world and dividing the observed into a network of relating concepts, thoughts, what have you. From language came our reality, including science. And what is science measuring? The observers reality. Also of note. Everything looks like a network. The mind, the internet, the universe, the body, etc etc. All look pretty much the same from the right observation points. So everything is connected.

Your comment would make sense if science and man could separate. We can't. The moment we created (raised entropy) science we were permanently linked together. Creator and creation. No matter how hard you try science will have its beginning in man. Thus science may never truly be separate from man or what created man. Science though is not observable by anything in the universe but us. Now if you can't separate how do you observe your creator? Interaction in this world is one way, observers give the observed meaning. The realest thing we can observe in our Universe is ourselves, not the physical, but the intangible being of man. Argue again that science is greater than the human mind. Both are intangible if that helps. so, Why should the universe obey the logic of science created by a group of ape descendants on a little blue green planet around a rather average star?

No not yet. For that reality to exist the observer must also be the observed. Now it's perfect. Thus, something can be anything but nothing. And this is why entropy rises in isolated systems. Because the observed and observer are exchanging information. Simply by observing and being observed, by existing, the entropy rises. Why? 1=0.999... A whole can be broken down infinitely into hidden information, and finitely into observable information, but it all is still just 1, whole. Why does 1 = 0.999...? 0 = illusion of nothing, cannot truly exist. . = absolute division of 0 and everything that exists. Singularity. The closer you get the closer to the illusion of 0 but also to 1 999... = everything observable, an infinite number of 9's, each exactly the same as the last. Or are they? They are and aren't. Even though everything is made up of the same bits, 9's, but the position of the bit in the sequence of the whole changes everything for the observer, which is also always the observed. I also predict all irrational numbers ultimately add up to 0.999... (all are odd) leaving only probability for all other numbers, some are even so will add up to 1, but 1=0.999... and 1 is odd. This is why reality is quantum and not at the same time. Our world is even, parity=0 (0 is an illusion). The hidden world is odd, parity=1. They interact because of the illusion of 0, everything is still parity 1, bits and no reason a bit cant interact with another bit but a lot of the interaction we will miss, hidden information. The more complex the interaction between the observed and the observer, the higher the entropy, the more gravity. SpaceTime is a product of this. Everything, material or not exists. Every thought, every irrational or rational concept, everything is part of the whole. The past and future are still, one single whole. We just happen to be observing the reading of the information, the present, which truly isn't a thing, its action, its motion, its space, its time, its everything observable.

The observable existence of Popcorn, the room, and me means we already "spontaneously combusted". Now the observer is either observing our continued combustion or reduction relative to the observers position in TimeSpace to the observed.

Okay, so science is not the study of truth or observable truth. It's the study of only the truths we can measure. Right? Is there a single truth, an absolute truth? So if the idea, the perception of a mind exists, and the perception of things within a mind exist, then what is a mind? It must be observable or do we forget it because we think we can't measure it? Can we measure the mind by how it affects the material world? Who is the internal human monologue talking to? Why does it even talk at all? Why are some human internal monologues not even language? When I asked how you think I meant it. I am an intuitive, I do not consciously think. Things just pop up out of nowhere and I get a deep feeling of intuition. My mind is non stop mind-pops (google it). In my mind also all senses are merged. When I hear a sound, my mind feels it, sees it, smells it, it has shape, position, mass, texture, etc. Way more properties than the material world. Thus for me how can I not put equal stock in that reality since it makes up my perception? Am I wrong or are you? If I am able to navigate the world without dying and manage to live a longer and happier life than you, am I right? Or is there no right or wrong because there is no one truth or is there a single truth? Why does the word "information" when broken down into its "root words" describe particles? In =

Let me ask some question so that I can understand why I am wrong/not even understood from your vantage point. Is science about how "bits, small or large bits the same" interact in our shared awareness? To exist is to be observable so the fact of an observable universe means it exists? If before the Universe there was nothing, how was its creation observed? Does nothing = 0 or 1? How about everything, 0 or 1? Does science only study the measurable? Does science believe there is the unobservable? Can unobservable be measured? If it's not measurable does it exist?

Everything observed is information. (sound scientific theories point to this) Everything observed is in. (reality as observed is not a closed system, it's part of) Everything observed is form. (reality has space, the space in spacetime) Everything observed is mot. (reality has time, the time in spacetime, the method) Everything observed is ion. (greek for "going", going from one thing to another, Alpha to Omega) To lay is to lie everywhere but the present. In the present tense being still is a lie. Everything observed is mot. (latin for "move") Coincidence? If reality is information then it seems to me everything is conserved. Bits of information cannot be destroyed. I'm also sure the number 3 is very important. DAY = 1 = night/day = start/end = alpha/omega = a cycle Sleep = 1/3 = awareness is unawareness Awake = 2/3 = awareness is not unawareness also we easily understand 1/3, one third, but why is the decimal form infinite? Like pi for example. Something so easily grasped, observed, yet infinitely complex. So, what came first sleep or awake, night or day? Alpha is Omega and when that happens, paradox. Zeno's paradoxes are a set of philosophical problems generally thought to have been devised by Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea (ca. 490–430 BC) to support Parmenides's doctrine that contrary to the evidence of one's senses, the belief inplurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion. It is usually assumed, based onPlato's Parmenides (128a–d), that Zeno took on the project of creating these paradoxes because other philosophers had created paradoxes against Parmenides's view. Thus Plato has Zeno say the purpose of the paradoxes "is to show that their hypothesis that existences are many, if properly followed up, leads to still more absurd results than the hypothesis that they are one." (Parmenides 128d). Plato has Socrates claim that Zeno and Parmenides were essentially arguing exactly the same point (Parmenides 128a–b).