In Search of a Cyclops

the proof of nothing — a theory of everything ©

To the reader: *this information
is copyrighted. It is provided to you by Penta Publishing for your research
only, and intended just for you. Please have third parties contact Penta Publishing
about receiving access to this information.*

Go Figure

Through words and examples in the first four chapters of *In
Search of a Cyclops*, it was established through various metaphysical ways that nothing plays a role in
our daily lives; nothing has indeed a function. Now, it becomes imperative to
show under what circumstances nothing is always there. Because — if nothing
is part of the fundamentals — a theory of everything should then also contain
this phenomenon of nothing. Some have mentioned that the information contained
within this chapter is nothing more than trying to kick in a door already open,
yet while that appears to be true, the goal of this chapter is different: the
mathematical evidence indicates rather that this door is *never* closed.

**introduction**

Though the intention of this chapter in particular is to deliver
scientific support for the absence of a unified field — and is delivered further below — it may be prudent to
clarify in different kinds of words what this means first. On that most important
*platform of everything* the existence of a fundamental nothing would automatically
deliver a second position to that platform. It is not the nothing itself that
would actively participate, yet the nothing would play a role as a 'force of
separation' between at least two aspects — separation automatically means
plurality. Though unification should be rejected for the platform when separation
is shown to be fundamental, various aspects on that platform could still adhere
to *their* own internalized context of unification. One aspect adhering,
for instance, to a singular context and another aspect adhering to the absence of
such a singular context are then two aspects within the whole of everything
that are basically different — and yet both aspects are then contributing
to the whole, creating the whole of existence.

The hypothesis for this chapter is that a unified field of forces is impossible, and this hypothesis is based on separation being all-important. In other words, separation would come before creation. Almost like an announcer arrives before a program actually starts, the nothing is there before the real action is shown. With separation proven to take part within the whole as an all-important aspect, unification could not be the standard of our universe, and singularity would be absent in our universe. For physicists this would imply that looking for a theory of everything that contains a unified field of forces is like looking for god. No scientist would ever look for god in a professional sense. Interestingly enough, and supporting this delivery, is that the facts so far do not contain any scientific evidence that singularity exists. In some theories it is indeed suggested that singularity exists, for instance, within Black Holes, but these are not facts, they are 'only' theories. If the evidence is delivered that singularity cannot exist in our reality scientists would immediately stop looking for a unified field. By definition scientists do not look for god.

Next, it is important to declare the reality of data first. The following image is used as the context to explain the various forms of scientific data we have.

In the image we see three material realities: the woman, the vase, and the wall. We know that a fourth object is real, too: the light source that helps project shadows of the woman and the vase onto the wall. Scientifically, we do not have more than this. Yet our data is not always this straight forward. We can often get all the information we need to understand the material realities. But sometimes we can only glean at the realities based on the black-and-white information we received from the wall. Had the picture been of just the shadows of the wall, we could have guessed there were three faces: two white faces and a black face. We could have said that the black in between the two white faces is not a vase, but rather a black hole. We'd then also say that the black face is an opposing force of the white face(s).

This example is to show how easy it is to come to conclusions that are not correct. In the image, we have all parts that explain what is going on. But if we only had data bouncing back to us from the wall, we would be severely limited in what we know. The human mind wants to fill in the gaps, and it can do so in a variety of correct and incorrect ways. Everything shown in the picture belongs to the scientific realm. The incorrect interpretations also belong to the scientific realm up until proven incorrect. The following evidence is provided to eliminate some of the incorrect assumptions we have within our current scientific realm.

**numbers**

On some level, mathematics may be seen as the numerical abstraction of reality, and we can investigate the abstract zero — though this number should not be seen as just the abstract representative of nothing — and find out if zero is always there. Let's take, for instance, the number 10. You can see that this number is made up out of two numbers: 1 and 0. The zero itself has no value to add, but the position it takes in augments the single 1 significantly. This second position can theoretically be taken in by any number between 0 and 9. The position is there and zero — though adding nothing — delivers the fact of that position.

The example above shows that the value of something immediately greater than 9 is 10. Does that show zero's fundamental character? Before we get to the tables and the more intricate evidence, let's first take a closer look at that phenomenon of positioning itself. The step from 10 to 100 is nothing more than adding an extra position in front of the two digits of 10, though it appears we added a zero at the back. The step here is that 100 has three positions, while 10 only has two. The fact that nobody has to give permission for this third number position to appear means that it was there to begin with. In the light of the three positions of 100, 10 could have been written with three positions as well, like 010. The difference between 10 and 010 — or even 0000010 — is nothing but showing that a third position already existed in front of the 10. In this case the zeroes in front of 10 are truly 'nothings' that can be displayed — if so desired — or not. In general, we do not want to put zeroes in front of every number. And why should we? They've got nothing to add! But it means we can easily forget that the option is always there and that position is cue. The example of 010 is used to not only show that the first zero can take up the exact same place where nothing could have been placed as well, but that the first and the second zero are not identical either: one zero is optional, the other zero is required.

Though it is not hard to show that zero is seemingly always
there, it is important to find harder evidence that nothing truly is always
there, that it has a greatness of character, because it will otherwise be ignored
by the ultimate rulers: the scientists. The lingua franca of mathematics has
evolved over many years and/or came forth out of many disputes. Interestingly
enough, in mathematics there are two mathematical contexts in which the number
zero takes in a different spot. On the one hand — in number theory —
zero is not placed within the definition of natural numbers. In the definition
used by number theorists the natural numbers start out with one (1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, etc). On the other hand, ever since Peano created his five axioms for
the natural numbers, the natural numbers do start with zero in *set theory*.
It is quite interesting that in mathematics there is ground too to disagree
about the fundamental building blocks. One theory creates a definition with,
the other theory creates a definition without zero as a natural number. Ultimately,
a definition is only a definition and should not have too much of an impact
on most results, but the conceptual ideas that mathematicians create with their
wonderful work often functions as the
scout for other disciplines. It is not uncommon for phenomena to be known
in mathematics before an actual counterpart is discovered in physics. As such,
the mathematical definitions are quite important. In a way, these two definitions
take in the exact spots of the two aspects described above; one aspect has a
context in which a unified delivery exists — while excluding zero —
and one aspect has a context in which a unified delivery does not exist.

Showing the silence, the invisible idea, the nothing to be fundamental can be accomplished with the figure zero. Though zero and nothing are not by definition identical, we may certainly investigate this peculiar number in — what some have called — 'the language in which god speaks to us.' As was already shown above, the zeroes in front of a number, like 00001119, do take up the space of nothing. In another example — three minus three — we find that zero is functional, but does it show that zero is fundamental? Is it truly linked to the other numbers? What needs to be established is that zero is an essential part of this language. To achieve that we can use the model of the positive integers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7... This way, evidence can be delivered that zero is linked to them. It sounds extremely logical, but the character of zero makes it difficult to deliver evidence that zero is intrinsically linked. Again, whether we see zero as an actual member of the natural numbers (set theory) or not (number theory): that is simply not of importance in this quest. Its result — giving the answer whether unification can exist on the level of our universe or not — is important to help us understand everything.

**the evidence**

Follow these five steps that lead to the required use and therefore to the evidence that zero is linked. It is only necessary to have a level of elementary math and to have some endurance. In the first step it is shown that the prime numbers are somehow tied in with the natural numbers. Prime numbers are numbers that can be divided only by themselves and one. See Table 1 the prime numbers are highlighted in green. This table shows a strong resemblance to the work of Eratosthenes, who created his sieve for finding prime numbers more than 2200 years ago. In Table 1 the numbers between 1 and 100 are placed in lines of six numbers. In these "six-packs" (7-8-9-10-11-12 or 19-20-21-22-23-24) prime numbers will only be located in the first and the fifth position (7 and 11, and 19 and 23). There are two exceptions: the numbers 2 and 3. The special nature of number 1 will be discussed later, while for reasons of visual and conceptual clarity number 1 is discussed in this chapter as a prime (in clear violation of the mathematical standard), but 1 as a prime will later be rebuked. After the first line of six numbers there are no prime numbers found in the second, third, fourth, or sixth position. To summarize: the first step demonstrates that when all numbers are placed in lines of six (with the only exception being the first line) prime numbers occur only in first and fifth positions.

In the second step the focus is no longer on the prime numbers,
but just on the numbers in the first and fifth positions that are not prime
numbers such as 25, 35, and 49. See Table
2, they are the numbers in the first and fifth positions highlighted in
red. It turns out that these numbers are all various multiplications of prime
numbers. Follow the color code and it becomes apparent that all of the red numbers
are the multiplications of the numbers in green with the exception of 2, and
3. For example, 25, 35, 55, 65, 85, and 95 are numbers in the first or fifth
position that are divisible by 5. The numbers 49, 77, 91 are numbers that are
divisible by 7. If we extend the table beyond one hundred the multiplications
of 11 (121, 143, 187, 209, 253...) would also be found. The multiplications
of 13, 17, 19... would come into focus as well. The second step reveals the
relationship that all numbers on first and fifth positions have with each other.
The red numbers are multiplications of the green numbers (and later down the
line also of the other red numbers). I will refer to this group of red and green
numbers in first and fifth positions as the **AE-numbers**.

In the third step the focus is on the red numbers. These red numbers, which are multiplications occurring in first and fifth positions, form a distinctive pattern! For this to become more visible the red numbers must be taken apart according to their AE-number in the same way as was done in step two. Let's follow the pattern of the multiplications of 5. See Table 3, highlighted in red, a pattern is visible in which the multiplications occur in set positions. 25 is the starting point. Here the square of 5 is found in a line of six numbers in the first position. The next, 35, is found one line below in a fifth position in a line of six. The next, 55, is four lines below in a first position. The next, 65, one line below. The next, 85, four lines below, and so on. Notice that Table 3 enumerates through 178. The pattern of AE-number 5 shows a jump down of 1 line and 4 lines. At the same time the first position and the fifth position continuously swap places. This establishes that a pattern can be found for all multiplications of AE-numbers 5 or greater. Starting at the point of its own square in a first position in the six-pack, the multiplication of any AE-number will appear a fixed number of lines below in the fifth position in the six-pack. The sequence continues on a fixed number of lines below, but then moves back to a first position in the six-pack. This goes on infinitely. The multiplication of an AE-number zigzags down in a pattern.

In the example of number 7, as illustrated in Table 4, highlighted in blue, a jump pattern zigzags down 4 plus 3 lines of six-packs. Its square is in the first position in a six pack, 49. The next place, 77, is four lines below in the fifth position in a six pack. The next place, 91, is three lines below in a first position, and so on. Let's examine some more examples.

For the number 11 in Table 5 there is a pattern going down of 3 plus 8 lines. After the square in a first position, the next one is found three lines below in a fifth position. The next one is found eight lines below back in a first position, and so on. For the number 13 in Table 6, highlighted in green, a pattern is found — after its square — eight and five lines apart. The third step, then, shows that the multiplications of AE-numbers can be taken apart and that jump patterns can be found.

Next, in the fourth step, one step before the conclusion, notice that these patterns are predictable. In other words, the patterns themselves occur systematically and this can be set apart in a pattern as well. To minimize confusion I will refer to this as the link-pattern. The link-pattern shows the link between the separate patterns. See the link table. The link is that the latter number in a pattern is used again as the former number of the next pattern. For instance, three, which is the latter number in the sequence for seven (4 + 3) is also the former in the next sequence of eleven (3 + 8). The sum of each pattern also equals the AE-number 4 + 3 = 7 and 3 + 8 = 11. When two out of three parts of a sum are known, the remainder can be found also. For thirteen this means that when 8 is known to be the former, the latter has to be 5. 13 has a pattern of 8 + 5. Five then returns for 17 as the former (5 + 12). The fourth step shows that all patterns can be known because each pattern is linked with the next.

The fifth and last step demonstrates evidence that zero is an
essential and intrinsic part that becomes visible when using only the members
of the natural numbers. Evidence is found by going backwards to the beginning
of the link-pattern. For AE-number 7 there is a pattern of 4 + 3. Going backwards,
it is established that 4 as the former was also the latter (1 + 4) in the pattern
of AE-number 5. So, in the pattern of AE-number 5 (1 + 4) the 1 is the repetition
of the latter in the pattern of number 1. This means that number 1 has a pattern
of 0 + 1. The former of the pattern of number 1 is **zero**.

As you can see in Table 7, highlighted in red, the square of 1 (which is also 1) is in its proper position in the six-pack. Note that Table 7 does not start with 1 anymore. The 0 has been added to update the table with the newly found information. The first line of six consists therefore of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. This reordering of the table still preserves the pattern occurring in the positions under the numbers 1 and 5. In the pattern of 0 + 1, the first number is 1. The next number in the pattern, 5, is found nil lines below, which actually means that it is found on the same line. It is found in its proper position. The next number, 7, is found in the position under 1, but one line below. The next, 11, is found nil lines below in a position underneath 5, and so on. The pattern is actually a jump of one line and then a halt, and it therefore takes in two positions per line. The outcome of this pattern equals all positions taken by 1 and 5 and their likes in every following six-pack; here we find the positions of both the prime numbers (the numbers that were shown as green in the first two tables) and the multiplications of prime numbers (shown in red in the first two tables). As such, it underlines the importance of every position of 1 and 5 in each line of six numbers, but it also shows that even taking nil steps has a consequence that has a visual effect. This is the beginning from which every following pattern emerges. This is the layout, the template, of what happens next. The evidence that zero is linked to the other numbers lies in the fact that its use is required to name the pattern of number 1. Without zero the pattern cannot be named or explained. Zero is therefore a fundamental part of what may initially appear quirky and unimportant, but what is nevertheless an essential part of this most basic pattern found in math.

**explanation**

A conceptual idea with a fully linked zero can help explain
why two different mathematical theories exist at the same time, with one placing
zero within the definition of the natural numbers and the other placing zero
outside that definition. At one point in time both groups of mathematicians
made use of the ability to choose, yet was that choice considered to be part
of the answer? Ironically, the choice — whether zero belongs to the natural
numbers or not — is delivered in the abstract by no other number than zero
itself. No other number delivers the option to make something unimportant; this
is accomplished by simply stating that something has no value (or said differently
has a value of zero). We do it all the time. Something or someone is important
(has value) or not (has no value). One group of mathematicians gives the number
zero significance within the definition of the natural numbers, the other group
does not. We have ended up with two positions, where there really is only one. It is possible to say that this is *No biggy*, but one important consequence in this conceptual thinking
may be that we forget to place the phenomenon of nothing right at the middle
of the occurrence of the Big Bang itself, for instance, as if separation was
a byproduct and not a fundamental aspect. Such a definition may not lead to
the idea that the phenomenon of nothing was functional at the beginning of our
universe. The difference is no small potatoes. Separation would then fall below
the radar of our factual consciousness and it is not seen as an important tool
in the creation of our universe. If we then try to understand that creation,
we miss out on one possible fact: that separation could be the necessary first
act. And a good question to ask is if such separation occurred as in a violent
explosion or as in a parting of sides with nothing happening but a true nothing
coming in between?

With the evidence that zero is linked to the other natural numbers, we have found that the option of nothing is fundamental within everything and cannot be shut outside. Shutting out something is basically the action of zero, and it should therefore belong to any fundamental framework that tries to deliver a view on everything. However, nothing also provides the option to not see it as fundamental.

A similar ordering appears with the phenomenon of colors. Even when we all agree that black is not a color because it represents the absence of any reflection of light, it can still be seen as part of the framework of colors because it states something rather fundamental about colors. Without black we cannot describe all characteristics of color. The interesting part is that the choice is ours. Without black, all colors may be placed perfectly well on a flat area, with white in the middle. With black, however, the colors take place on a globe with one pole being black and another pole being white — the colors varying around the equator. From this latter perspective we can then also see that not just white, but literally all specific colors exist in opposition to black, since they both collectively ánd individually take in a position that is opposite to 'no reflection of light.' The opposite of red is then not just green, the opposite of red as a specific reflection of light is then also black as the non-reflection of light; and so on. In light of a theory of everything, both mathematical theories show us different conceptual ideas, which may not seem helpful. Yet, while it may be confusing, if we place both definitions on our radar screen at the same time, we may see the inherent choice itself better. The fact that we can choose is made obvious by placing both definitions side by side.

A quick parallel can be drawn about the binary system and the
decimal system. Both can be used to appoint numbers to anything in our universe,
yet both systems are fundamentally not identical. The binary system uses only
two parts — 0 and 1 — to establish binary deliveries. The decimal
system has 10 parts, each with more specific connotations. Not a single scientist
would feel compelled to choose one version and deny the existence of the other;
both have their own fields in which they can be used best. These two mathematical
systems function side by side, can be used to numerically appoint anything in
our universe, yet basically they are different. In the binary system, no one would suggest making zero insignificant; the binary system cannot function without two positions. In the decimal system, we can end up choosing whether to mention or not to mention that zero. But whatever the choice we make, we now know that the zero *is* always there.

The patterns as sketched above with the tables are derivations of the positive integers; they state characteristics of the positive integers and do so in the language of these numbers. However, within structures found within these numbers we find a jump sequence of 1 that is 0 + 1. Can zero still be seen as an outsider? No matter the outcome to the defining question, we have evidence that zero is always there. As soon as someone says 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, you can mention that this person has forgotten 0. It is important to note that not a single soul would say that in the binary system zero is not part and parcel. Now, in the decimal system, we can also say that zero is always there. It has a greatness of character.

**there is more**

Even though the goal has been met of delivering evidence that zero has a greatness of character, to complete the information an explanation should also be given for the special places of the numbers one, two and three. Out of the above information the deduction can be made that the first line of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is a matrix according to which the other, following numbers conform themselves. It is the only line that has prime numbers in more than two positions. This does not collide with the prime number pattern that has been shown herein. The question arises: does the first line hold a more prominent place than the other lines? Examine the squares of the prime numbers, for example 25 (5 x 5) on the fifth line of six numbers and 49 (7 x 7) on the ninth line of six numbers. See Table 8, highlighted in yellow.

Look at the number of lines that lie between them. The step from 25 to 49 contains four lines of six numbers. If we look at 1, 25, 49, 121, 169, 289, 361... — which are all squares of AE-numbers — another pattern is found in how many lines of six numbers the squares of AE-numbers lie apart: four, four, twelve, eight, twenty, twelve lines of six apart. This means that the place the next square of an AE-number is found is predictable: 4, 4, 12, 8, 20, 12, 28, 16, 36, 20... lines apart (these last six numbers of lines, representing the place the square of an AE-number is found, are not visible in Table 8). This series of numbers actually has two patterns in its structure. They can be presented as N + 4 plus P + 8 (the red numbers in this paragraph) both taking turns. N + 4 stands for the number of lines 4, 8, 12, 16, 20... as each number goes up by an amount of four. P + 8 stands for the number of lines 4, 12, 20, 28, 36... as each number of lines goes up by an amount of eight. This single structure with a double pattern of (N + 4)+(P + 8), representing the squares of prime numbers, is found when you divide the positive integers into lines of six.

Interesting though it becomes when reaching the larger figures, to explain the special position of numbers 2 and 3 please look at the beginning of the structure. Look at the line of six of the square of 5 (25). Twenty-five lies on the fifth line of six numbers. It is true that it takes four steps to get to 25, but only if you start to count after the first line. This means the first line is already there. It might not sound special, but when acknowledging the existence of this pattern the six numbers of the first line should be considered a given. It should therefore be perceived as the basic line. Then a justifiable conclusion can be made that the first line is the starting point from which other significant conclusions are abstracted.

So 2 and 3 aren't just prime numbers; they are basic numbers. To understand the significance of the first line further, ask if the number 1 really is a prime number. Although it is true that it 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. It differs from the prime numbers in that not one, but both parts can be used again and again without changing the result (1 x 1 x 1 x 1 remains 1), while the prime numbers containing just one such part (for instance, 1 x 5, or 1 x 7) remain only the same when one of the two numbers is multiplied. When multiplying 1 more than once in, for instance, 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 7, this still results in an outcome of 7. Yet when multiplying the other part, for instance with 1 x 7 x 7 x 7 x 7 x 7, the second multiplication of 7 already leads to the answer being no longer the same result. What we consider to be prime numbers has only one of its parts contain the infinitive of 1, never both parts; this one part can be used in an infinite number of multiplications without changing the outcome. Naturally, one of Euclid's greatest efforts, the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, delivers another reason why 1 is not a prime number. The theorem states that any natural number can be factored into primes only in one way. With 1 as a prime, this does not hold. In a sense, 1 shows several characteristics all at the same time. It is very much like the color white: it takes in a very special position because it is more than just a color: it can be seen as the culmination of all colors. Number 1 is both the number itself, and the square of itself. A double phenomenon is captured within this one single number. And like 1, the numbers 2 and 3 are special numbers. Their significance as prime numbers can be connected to their position in the basic line. This concept requires that all numbers of the basic line, including two and three, be seen as basic models. The basic line may be seen as a matrix that helps form all numbers thereafter. This matrix is clearly unique.

There is one last peculiarity that N + 4 starts neatly at zero (4, 8, 12, 16, 20 etc.), while P + 8 inconveniently counts back half a step (4, 12, 20, 28, 36 etc.). After the basic line is placed the P + 8 structure can only make half a step of 4 the first time to get to 25. Were the first four parts of 8 used to make the steps to get from 1 to 5? Or could it only muster half a step since it was based both on 1 and 0, averaging to just 1/2? Or had there be some equality first, with both taking a first step of 4 lines? Or did this part not start at the previous square of 5 (25), but it too started at the first line, hence making a step of 8 lines? Whatever your guess, it emphasizes the special place the numbers of the starting line take in.

**unity**

The used frameworks in math have one more interesting peculiarity:
the number 1 is sometimes referred to as 'unity.' As mentioned before, the importance
of what a word means may be a point of discussion. Mathematicians work with
prime numbers, non-prime numbers, and unity (1). It is important to give 1 a
name all to itself because it is such an important number. However, in ordinary
language, *unity* is a word that is only used to show the peculiar situation
of several parts. Unity is a word that points to the special situation of many
or of several parts, for instance, a family or group. The independent country
was united, not because large slabs of clay formed one contiguous piece of land,
but because all people in the nation had put their differences aside and they
united behind the single idea to get their independence. Unity is therefore
a word about a situation that was established; it did not exist from the start:
unity indicates a result. Just like 1 is not a prime number — following
and not following the rule of prime numbers — unity has a dual nature
in being a singular expression of a collective outcome. So, unity is much more
than 1, while at the same time 1 is far more different than just unity. Naturally,
the word unit is used to deliver a single entity, like the unit of kilo or pound,
but these units can be used over and over again. It is important to understand
that mathematicians may choose to name 1 whatever they like, but it is peculiar
that they named it 'unity.' Of all numbers, 1 is the only number to deliver
singularity as a feature in opposition to plurality. Singular is described in
the dictionary as 'beyond the usual' or as 'strange' or 'odd.' By choosing the
confusing name of *unity* for 1, mathematicians (from a past long gone) have created
a conceptual difficulty that does not immediately help us in our quest to understand
everything.

Again, a look at the binary system can help clarify the word 'unity' further, since the basis for the word 'unity' seems completely absent here. With 0 as an empty or non-energized (off) position, the binary 1 would better be described as an energized (on) position; it is the only active ingredient, and it is used over and over again.. It would not make sense to name 1 in the binary system 'unity.' If you listen carefully, you can hear people describe the binary system as a system of ones and zeros. This is a statement of plurality. The mathematical set up does not have a 'the one' or 'the zero.' The idea of singularity — 1 — does not jump out from this system as readily as it does in the decimal system. In the decimal system, 1 is the winner, the first, the highest, the position of being united. The single number 1 — thé one — is used in a context that automatically declares the existence of others. How can one be the winner, if no one else partakes in the race? How can the nation be united, if there was not a status of some separation before?

**Odin**

Words are just that: words. Nevertheless, once words are established
they can show interesting linkages, such as the Russian word for 1, for instance,
which is 'odin.' It is not by accident that this Norse god Odin appears in the
Russian language. There have been strong ties and connections between the Vikings
and the Russians. The god Odin, also known as the all-father, is seen as the
god of the very beginning. To understand everything — to get full knowledge
— Odin hung himself on the tree of life. He committed suicide to deliver and subsequently get a
clear view on the whole picture. Not an act to follow lightly, especially since
he survives the ordeal; don't ask how. Yet the thinking gets portrayed through
this Norse figure of how 1 as the origin is sacrificed and how it brings us as such understanding
about the whole that now contains many gods and parts (including Odin himself as *numero uno*). The Norse mythology delivers us therefore an ancient point
of view that unity *no longer* exists in the natural world. Though Odin
is considered the all-father, after his suicide he is in this new existence
no longer the only god. He is now just the one from which everything started,
and as such he has become the 'one' that is now part of everyone.

There are more religions in which more gods play their specific
roles. Just think of the Greek and Roman gods, for instance. While Zeus is the
most important god, he is not the god of the beginning. He actually killed his
father, Chronos. As far as we know, at one point in time religions that only
had one god did not even exist. Was the idea of unity as an ultimately existing
entity clearly beyond reality for these ancestors? An interesting aspect is
that in the old days theologians and scientists were often one and the same
people. Today, such a setup is no longer in place: scientists cannot say anything
about god because the religious realm does not fit on the modern scientific
framework anymore. The word god does not appear in a scientific context —
it cannot appear in this context. And the theologians must stay with their position,
otherwise they may lose the divine connection. Or have both groups simply lost
touch with the other side, are they both being pulled apart by different directive
powers? These two versions may be captured in this chapter in that they too
deliver different perspectives about the overall universe. Each functions according
to its own context. The word *god* and the words *repeatable evidence*
show how science and religion have fundamentally *nothing* in common.
Or are they both the same — as in both ignoring the importance of nothing?

In English, one can use the word one to express what one may or may not do/think/feel. One is a word that can state something about me without it truly sounding like it is about me. One can be used to state something about everyone in general. One can easily do that. No one can argue with that. When one uses one, one uses a word that is a little bit vague.

**the one theory of everything**

Finally, let's battle it out with the concept of 'the one.'
We can easily use the term the *whole* and then truly mean the whole.
Without a doubt the word *universe* captures everything. Yet what confuses
us the most is when we start using this word *whole* and then mention
the concept of nothing at the same time. These two words do not belong to the
same level. Many may state that a bagel also has a hole, but the whole bagel
comes with the hole, so the hole is not a separate part to be mentioned next
to the bagel. A simpler delivery of our using words of different levels is stating
incorrectly that a car is the car plus the interior space. We do not say that
the car is the car plus the steering wheel, because that is superfluous. The
same is true for the spacious interior. The details are mentioned on a different
level: the steering wheel, the back seat, the wheels, and the interior space.
One word that you will not find on this list: car. Car is not a detail. At the
level of 'thé One' there is only one number: 1. There is no zero here
at this level. When talking about the whole, we do not mean the 1 of the decimal
system, and we do not mean the 1 of the binary system. We refer to a 1 that
is the only single number in a system all to itself. The absolute 1 is a concept,
an abstract that we can visualize inside our head, but it is not a concept that
is real in itself — and it is not a scientific concept. Our universe is
not a single entity; it is the incredibly enormous congregation of anything
that is out there. And this plural situation includes us, too.

Despite the fact that scientists work with forced entities of nothing (like vacuums) or empty sets in math, none of these options have created a clear view on everything. The main problem is that science does not come with a singular concept. Yet we try. We have so many concepts inside our heads, all at the same time, that we quickly use parts of one field to explain certain parts of other fields. Still, 'the one' is a concept that only belongs outside the realm of science; if you wish, one can call that religion.

Anytime anyone mentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 — but not zero — a fundamental part of the natural state of our universe has conceptually been left out. Just like the binary system, the decimal system comes with a zero. We may forget it easily, sometimes for good reasons, like unnecessary repetition of zeros in front of a number that do not change the result at all, as in 00005. Or we do not mention it, because it is truly not important whether zero belongs to a definition or not for whatever we are doing. Yet overall scientific contexts always have a place for the phenomenon of nothing. To come to a theory of everything the phenomenon of nothing must be included — it has to be included because we have mathematical evidence that it is always there.

Even though nothing was not seen as fundamental, science itself is squarely based on the ability to view certain information in the light of nothing. Science was established through repeatable results, while everything else that is not repeatable may be considered to have a value of zero — as in unimportant — in the light of facts. Without this function, science would not be science — could not be science. Therefore, the function of nothing is intrinsic to science itself. With the evidence that 0 is a fundamental part scientists may start to look for a number of applications they had previously not considered. In the mean time, we have discovered that a theory of everything must contain several independent parts — because with a fundamental nothing ultimate unification in the material world is out.

The information provided is part of In Search of a Cyclops in which more scientific questions are answered, for instance, how to view dimensions and how the basic 3D set-up contains a scientific anomaly. There are two sponsored (free) chapters available of In Search of a Cyclops.

©

How to get In Search of a Cyclops

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In Search of a Cyclops" contains scientific information to back up the claim that nothing plays a role in each and every structure that tries to deliver a completed view. While the idea of nothing can be a simple concept in itself, the fact that it is present whenever we try to create a structure about everything makes it imperative that we need to understand the role of nothing before we can understand everything.