Blue as you say is a wave frequency of light. As such, it is the same everywhere in the universe. But if that is not convincing enough, then the periodic table should show all that we have a basic truth existing in the universe. That is where we must stand, and I do not see you stand. It appears you prefer not to stand, Andy, and that is fine, but this is perhaps the one spot where our brains function differently.

A quick word on brains, because we will structure it according to our belief system. If a person believes in a monotheistic God, then his or her brain will organize itself that way, with that single spot in top.

Another person believes in pantheism, and there may be a top dog, but not all pathways lead to that top dog; other pathways lead to other gods.

Recognize how both structures are never ever the same. So, brains are organized differently across the human world.

Here is the fascinating part: Folks can adhere to one belief system while their brain is functioning on the other belief system.

It is like seeing letters in numbers and vice versa. Folks can pollute their brains by not having their feet on the ground.

The basics of math is real, but it depends on what system we are using. Particularly the big picture perspective depends on how we organized our brain and what we view with it.

-

You like math.

Gödel's Incompleteness theorems must be mentioned therefore, and I am going to give you two simple examples to see both theorems.

1. All males in the world have a common truth (for instance, the ability to grow a mustache). We cannot apply that truth to all people. As such we find an Incompleteness at the top level, though we did start out with a real truth. Same can be said with taking something truthful about females and that not being applicable to all people. That's Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem.

2. When we take all truths of males and all truths of females, then we can still not come to a Completeness for all. We have to apply the fig leaves to Adam and Eve to find generic truths that are applicable to all, excluding the specific spots that cannot be the same, ever.

Either way, we find an Incompleteness at the top level.

What we did in #2 is interesting. We lifted folks up to a general level in which -indeed- all is then some kind of 1. Yet we had to leave out, sweep under the rug, the specifics that can never be the same kind. Voila, we created a concept, because the outcome hangs in the air, an Incompleteness, and no feet are on solid ground but rather on self-created grounds. The brain made up its own grounds.

That is our challenge, Andy. We either find that our paths take a different route where the big picture is concerned or we end up agreeing that Gödel was indeed right. 1/ Truths are the starting points, and 2/ the overall outcome an Incompleteness based on the starting points. I would call it a waste if we can’t nail that tiny spot where we are not aligned yet, because we both realize our brains are functioning in very similar manners. We are very close in our thinking.

I will be traveling for a couple of days, so I am busy, too. I do want to say that I am happy having found you because we recognize that we have a whole lot in common.

Let me end our conversation at this point therefore with the perspective that our current state is a result, and not the original. Once agreed on this, then there can only be one conclusion: that the prior setup broke like a vase on the floor, yet with all pieces still intact, so to speak.

Thank you, Andy, for very good communications. Definitely, my pleasure.