And just when I thought we were solid in a 3D environment, you are taking it down a notch, John.

I am not disagreeing that without the ups and downs it is a flatline. I am saying this delivery misses depth.

Without the ups and downs, lefts and rights, fronts and centers, it's a flatline.

And even then, we do not have above water what a flatline indicates because in science there are two options to view the big picture.

Either with the flatline, it is indicated that all could potentially come from nothing.

Or with the flatline, it is indicated that all is expressed via some form best described as a balancing act.

This distinction is no small potatoes.

• We either declare A/ Everything prior as 0, or we declare B/ Everything prior as 1.
• Then, we can declare today either A/ as 1 established and expressed, or as B/ an expression of 1 and 0 both equally important.

The human brain can but should not pick one over the other; rather, it must find the answer in the field.

In the field, it turns out that Science may be the best tool, but it is itself limited and can only be used together with other tools to understand the big picture. The Scientific Reach falls short of what we can call the Scientific Realm. When evidence is absent, scientists can only theorize. At the Big Picture level, scientists can bring much, but simply not enough to declare the Big Picture.

Let me blurt it out: the largest structural level of the universe is 0. We find in the field that space is the ultimate, infinite aspect of the universe, greater than anything else and yet of a reality that can then best be described with 0 and not with 1.

Only at the 'lower' levels do we have all the other structures. For instance, we can declare Earth as a 1, and next we can declare the Solar System as a 1 (in which Earth is a different number altogether), and we can declare the Milky Way as a 1 (in which the Solar System is a different number altogether). Yet anything larger than the Milky Way and we do not have a structure in which all takes place, other than what we already declared with 0.

If we review the materialization process, then we have your flatline of ups, downs, lefts, rights, fronts, and backs all moving collectively in all their own directions. The Milky Way is moving in one specific direction and can be viewed in one system. All our ups, downs, lefts, rights, fronts and backs, however, are not related to those of other galaxies moving in their own directions. At the combined level of all these galaxies, there is no common structure. That level has a structure of 0.

On Earth we have one system. Yet it is rather complex, too, because at the north pole the entire planet is South and at the south pole the entire planet is North. So, the entire planet is both completely North and completely South providing us two accurate single positions that are fully in contradiction with one another.

Then, we have that Solar System, that Milky Way, and the next level up is truly the spatial level. We invented a word for it -- universe -- but it is just a word. If we empower this word as meaning something actual, then we established a Cyclops because there is no structural setup that makes all matter correlate with all matter. At this level it is the absence of a correlation that rules the day.

Universe is cyclopic word, just like God is a cyclopic word, or Nature, or Life, or Mankind, or Everything, Whole, All. These words exist in their own system.

As soon as we move up to that level with anything actual, we are establishing a Cyclops. Gödel already told us that with his Incompleteness Theorems.

Thank you, John, for your quick comment that tells me, while not in disagreement about what you say, that we are not following the same constructs in our minds.