I love it, André, a good use of English, and funny to boot.
When growing older, and we all do grow older until we don't anymore, then the truth reveals itself better and better. We see better where and when others are talking nonsense.
For me, it was 1981 when I saw the big picture. It was a disappointment like the disappointment of learning that Santa does not come around all year long.
I understood in 1981 that, what had been told over the decades of the 20th century, was all correct and that there was no greater mystery to uncover. What could be uncovered had already been uncovered. The scientists, the philosophers, the religious leaders, all had been correct in their own ways, and there was nothing else for me to uncover. As such, it was a disappointment because I thought there was some adventure of discovery ahead for me, but everything knowable was already known.
Can you imagine the enormous amazement I experienced when about five, six years later scientists started talking about the possibility of uncovering the theory of everything? Oh My God, they didn't know. They did not know that they knew everything that was knowable was indeed already known - by themselves.
It took me many, many conversations before I could understand what was going on inside the scientists' minds. But I now know it: They do not recognize that zero can be functional.
—
Let me first show you how easy it is to show it:
The empty position inside a wallet and the empty position inside a laundry basket are both the same kind of emptiness - ain't nothing there. Yet one emptiness forces us to go out there to make sure the wallet doesn't stay empty, while the other means we can relax and do nothing (and the laundry basket will start filling up soon enough ‘all by itself’).
It is a simple example, but the position of zero can mean a variety of things.
Here is a better example still:
When placing marriage next to divorce, we know that in one case something is consummated while in the other case that something is not consummated. All, while these very two people can be one and the same two people in two different legal situations.
In the case of marriage, we have everything plus the position of consummation. In the case of divorce, we have the same everything but then without the position of consummation.
Same for the Black Hole and the Black Eye. They are identical in every material aspect that we can witness, while in the case of the Black Hole something is assumed to be there but of such enormity it collapsed onto itself and then became invisible. Meanwhile, in the case of the Black Eye everything is the same but then without that invisible assumption.
Scientists do not accept that zero can be functional, and therefore they left out zero in all their models. The only model they could accept was the Black Hole with the invisibility factor included, representing something of such enormous material qualities that it became outer-worldly.
Had scientists accepted an empty position in the center of their model, then they could have still considered a Black Hole with that invisible mass included, but they would have also imagined the other possibility.
Now, they do not. They are keeping one eye closed, cannot look with both eyes at the same time, and they are missing therefore depth in their vision. They work with a model that can never contain a central empty position.
Physicists are wagging the dog because they have no clue which side is the head of the dog and which side is the tail. And they won't allow themselves to look with two eyes, so they can't figure it out. No matter which side is where, they will always wag the dog.
Thank you for the fun reply. I like it.
