A notebook bulletin board
tacked on when randomly bored
applied thoughts in a scribblebook
open for the world to look who passes by
so fast to see like a needle in a haystack we
safely stash those innermost secrets thought to be
at least you see languishing up and into pristine
blossoms for you to pick and sniff and hope
they don't make you sick.

## 10/7/09

### A Layman's Argument For Numerical Context

1/1=1
1/2=.5
1/3=.333333
1/4=.25
1/5=.2
1/6=.166667
1/7=.142857
1/8=.125
1/9=.111111
1/10=.1

Above you see ten examples of dividing one.

(For the purpose of consistency,
repeating decimals have been
shortened to six places.)

Let us examine this information as thoroughly as we can,
from as many angles as we can think of.

90% of the examples feature a decimal point to the left;
only 1 example (10%) has the decimal point to the right.

30% of the examples (2, 5, 10) feature only one number to the right of the decimal.

10% (1) features zero numbers to the right of the decimal.
10% (4) features two numbers to the right of the decimal.
10% (8) features three numbers to the right of the decimal.

40%(3,6,7,9) feature five numbers (repeating) to the right of the decimal.

Zero, one, two, three, and five are the identifying numbers in this examination.
As we cross out all our zeroes, this leaves 1,2,3, and 5 as the significators.

(Technically, the 5 represents endlessly repeating numbers, or an "infinite series". This crucial distinction may make all the difference to our experiment--On the one hand, we can isolate the number 5 and hope to find significanse in it, while on the other hand, the significanse may be the relation between 1,2,3 and infinity.

If 'trinity' rhymes with 'infinity', is this coincidence or synchronicity--or both?)

The numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10 are the only ones that retain exclusivity in being depicted to the right of the decimal for all ten examples.
(1,5,3,2,1 respectively)

This 1-5-3-2-1 sequence may become significant, later in our calculations.

(I see it as a sort of hyper-compressed value of ten reduced by half, wherein the sequence jumps from the start (1) to the end (5), and works its way backwards (3,2,1) to begin the cycle anew.)

Notice the value for 1 is twice as much as 2, 2 is twice as much as 4, 3 is twice as much as 6, 4 is twice as much as 8, and 5 is twice as much as 10.

(There is an "Inversion Principle" clearly going on here.)

If mathematics is a tool comparable with a measuring tape, then allow me to suggest that the concept of infinity is nothing more than the 'potential amount of measuring tape spooled up for the purpose of additional measurement should it be required', and not, by any stretch, an actual concept outside of our imagination. If we are able to pinpoint with accuracy this understanding of the infinite--as nothing more than "a potential measuring tool greater than the object being measured", we might gain much-needed focus on the finite and its self-replicating, repeating nature.

Finity is alive and breathing. The infinite is 'dead'.

The above reflections are an indication that the number with the highest possible value is not a googolplex, or any increasing variant thereof, but rather:

the number with the greatest possible value must be 1.

This helps to isolate and identify the real significanse of numbers, to me.

The question as to whether there are nine (1-9), ten (1-10), or even eleven (0-10) numbers becomes moot when one considers that, after all is taken into account and observed in its proper context, there is only one number: the number 1.

All other numbers are representations of dividing the ONE.

Why is this significant? Because it helps free our minds from the locked-down discipline of being blinded by specialization, or being led astray on a spurious tangent. As we are beginning to understand (that we cannot fully grasp) the quantum principles of the interconnected universe, it becomes evident that the very term 'interconnected universe' is a redundancy. The universe is one. In actuality there may be no seperation of parts. Therefore, it is crucial for us to remember how necessary it becomes to keep in mind the proper context of all this.

Words, like numbers, are merely labels we created to identify these various aspects of creation. The numbers zero through ten can be identified, or defined, as follows:

Zero is a label to represent an "empty set", a "null", a "void", a "lack of value", a "lack of a number", and in this sense, should be objectively identified as necessarily being excluded from the set of numbers.

One is a label to represent a singularity.
(A singularity in the first definition of the term,
"the quality or state of being singular.")

Two is a label of a label (representing two singularities)
Three is a label of a label of a label (representing three singularities).
Four is a label of a label of a label of a label. (etc.)
Five is a label of a label of a label of a label of a label.
Six is a label of a label of a label of a label of a label of a label.
Seven is a label of a label of a label of a label of a label of a label of a label.
Eight is a label of a label of a label of a label of a label of a label of a label of a label.
Nine is a label of a label of a label of a label of a label of a label of a label of a label of a label.

Ten is a label of a SET of labels (the aforementioned labels),

100 is a label of a SET of 10 labels, 1000 is a label of a SET of 100 labels, etc.

In conclusion, a thorough examination of the phenomenon of numbers should reveal that they should most optimally be defined as nothing more than a purified language for the express purpose of measurement.

One is the greatest number because presumably, it identifies the entire universe as we have come to understand it (of which our galaxy and sun and planet and our own selves are all only fractions thereof).

For further elucidation of these concepts, try the following links.

"That which is below is as that which is above,
and that which is above is as that which is below,
to perform the miracles of the one thing."

HOLOGRAPHIC THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE

As Today, So Before

TOE

If you are a mathematician, poet, scientist, or thinker,
please provide insight by commenting below.
Your input is appreciated.
Thank you.