2 - The identification of the second point of nothing
The next step in the process of creation reveals another dominating characteristic: perfectly opposed to a boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity of nothing, this axiom commands:
Axiom II - “all that is identified or created is
unique & unambiguous”
Now a “point of nothing” is identified by unique & unambiguous alpha-words, this is only the first part of a two-oneness, and after getting its own unique & unambiguous alpha-letter P and a beta-symbol as chosen by our ancestors, there is another one, showing also how using unambiguous alpha-words is not always possible:
This two-oneness of two -and no more than two- points of nothing disclose various jumps:
+ there is not only a boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity of “lines of nothing” which
are all passing P1, there is also such quantity of lines of nothing passing P2.
And in perfect opposition to these boundless, unlimited and infinite quantities of lines of nothing, the two-oneness of P1 and P2 is insepareble, defining:
one unique & unambiguous line of nothing, “unifying their two-oneness”...
+ this also completes the two-oneness of (defining + quantisizing) because P1 and P2
do quantisize “part” of the boundless, unlimited and infinite “length” of such line of
nothing as their “distance”, identifying the absolute first “dimension”, symbolised by
bold capitals D...
This first result of the start with nothing discloses also some fundamental differences with “classic mathematics” of the Greek Euclid of Alexandria [ca. 330 – ca. 275 b.CE]. After he collected all mathematical information available at that time, his book “Elements” was counting 13 volumes, proving that all principles of geometry are based on just five, 5 axioms, the first one stating:
“that there is just one straight line which connects two points” [ Gull ] p.381.
But when nature’s logistic order is respected, the second two-oneness is not leading to the existence of other types of lines than “straight” ones, hence there is no need for one or more adjectives yet, a minor but important purification of the used alpha-language.
Euclid’s second axiom states “that this straight line can be continued indefinitely”, but this also means that he is introducing some vague undefined dmu as “decision making unit”, being the cause or source “to continue that D1- line of nothing indefinitely”, hiding a surprise...In other words each D1- line of nothing as boundless, unlimited and infinite long, using three alpha-words to emphasize that this is beyond the highest levels of human comprehension, so you just have to accept this...
2.1 - The inseparable relation between D1- as geometrical dimension
and the first operation in "mathematics"
The basic beta-formula in classic mathematics did learn you how “one plus one would be equal to two”, in beta-formula: 1 + 1 = 2. In other words the alpha-words “plus” and “and” are now completed by the general beta-instruction symbolised by a “ + “, being the beta-instruction
“to unify all numbers at one side of “ = “ as symbol of equality, to one number
at the other side.
The original Arabic-verb for this “translation to the other side” being “al-jabr”, translated as “algebra” but the alpha-word “number” needs a better description. [Gullberg] shows in his “Mathematics”, the birth of numbers” how there are different kinds, defined as “natural numbers” or “counting numbers” which apparently are in need to be mathematically “completed” by “zero” and “negative numbers”...
But the new natural start of the beginning with nothing will proof that there is no two-oneness which will give access to negative distances or length which could be defined & quantisized by negative numbers, leading to the unambiguous conclusion that “positive- and negative integers” numbers don’t exist in nature, there is no discrimination, hence the adjective “positive” is superfluous...
The same will be valid for the discrimination between “rational and “irrational” numbers: at first glance the “operation of dividing” seems to be in perfect opposition to the “operation of unifying” but dividing in smaller parts than one as smallest possible unity does not exist either...
Even “complex” numbers as unification of a (real term + an imaginary term) are un-natural, being results of the human mind: as will be shown later, both adjectives “complex” and “imaginary” turn up to be incorrect and in need of a purification which will have fundamental consequences.
The unique & unambiguous definition of a “natural (counting) number” must be neutral non-discriminating, starting with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...,
three bold dots symbolising a “boundless, unlimited and infinite series” without end...
This is confirmed in chemistry where all atoms of all elements in nature, molecules, formulas and experiments with all chemical elements, compounds and mixtures are only showing such "whole" natural (counting) numbers...
This also means that the beta-formula “1 + 1 = 2” as base of human mathematics is actually denying & darkmooning the identity of the two P’s as points of nothing, as well as the identity of the D1- distance as part of a D1- line of nothing, one part which is in perfect opposition to its boundless, unlimited and infinite length. This allows to arrive at the restored and purified definition:
P1 as a local, sizeless point of nothing + (plus, and or & ) whatever chosen unity of
distance “d ” not only identifies one unique boundless, unlimited and infinite long
D1- line of nothing out of a boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity of D1- lines of
nothing which are passing both points, they also “quantisize” one part of its boundless
unlimited and infinite length.
But pure alpha-language shows that the identity of a “point of nothing” is not equal to the identity of a “line of nothing” or even some part of it, hence this mustbe identified by a different method, acknowledging all identitites, here distance “d “ as new one, chosen to be in “italic print”
P1 + 1d = P2
More fundamental differences with nature were created when the size of some parts of a human body were chosen as “unity of distance or length” like a thumb, ell(bow) or foot, always at hand.
But actually it isnot a human being which defines one “quantum” as smallest possible quantity but Nature and its process of creation, necessitating a new verb "quantisizing" to identify the “smallest possible unity of whatever dimension, characteristic, identity or entity etc.etc. as constant, never changing unity since the first moment of Beginning.
This results in:
Def. The smallest possible unity of distance or length between two -and no more than
two- points of nothing is the “first oerdimension”, its symbol being "Đ1”.
Now there is a two-oneness of this smallest possible unity of distance or length which is
in perfect opposition to the “boundless, unlimited and infinity” quantity of length of any
D1- line, making the second axiom of Euclid superfluous, even when this does not mean that a dmu would no longer exist...
The consequence is “that all sizeless points of nothing between P1 and P2 stay inaccessible for identification.... the whole “boundless, unlimited and infinite lot of them”.
This is also a hard confirmation that “infinitisemal small unities” don’t exist in Nature, a conclusion which will have dramatic consequences for later developments...
It is also important to realize -here and now- that “points of nothing” and “lines of nothing” are “invisible”. And when humans are not existing, there are no fingers to make images in the sand just as no images can be made when mass or matter of “pencils, ink and papyrus” would not exist, the all overruling conclusion being that “no image can be made of no thing”. Just as no image can be made of “that what is invisible”: it will always be “un-imaginary”, just as a “boundless, unlimited and infinite” quantity, predicting that the original alpha-word “imaginary” must be purified.
The unique & unambiguous special role of 1 and 2 was known in Chinese history for more
than 5000 years: the famous “I Ching”, translated as “The Book of Changes” shows 1 as
symbol of “Yang or heaven and light, 2 being symbol of Yin, earth or darkness”. This also
acknowledges the (alpha-) name "TAO" of " that (principle or concept) which is not created,
being " the source of everthing that has been created" and which name is either part of Yang
or Yin. Actually this principel or concept is un-nameable.
When this is now recognised as “perfect opposition between a “massless heaven of no thing”
and the mass of the earth as real some thing”, this is announcing// divinising a later surprise...
This is supported by the “perfect magic square” of the Great Yellow Emperor Fû Shî
[2953-2838BCE] when he was watching a turtle coming out of the river, its shield showing the
nine fields of numbers, number 5 in its centre, each horizontal, vertical and diagonal line
adding up to a total of 15 as "pan-diagonal perfect magic square", regarded as sign of heaven...
.
.