Thank you, K, for the compliment. But your replies showed me there is no shallowness on your part : - )

Understanding the universe has two components:

* the universe

* understanding

It is with understanding that we can make 'mistakes' and I hope you don't mind if I write about that a bit. It is actually quite fascinating how our brain puts one and one together. Apologies for the long work-around in this reply before making the point clear.

The brain captures our 3D world in 2D thoughts like wonderful paintings, which is great but there is something amiss with 2D: there is more than one way to interpret the information. In general we do just fine; we are the most advanced species on the planet after all.

But it is with the big picture that the problem arises. Thinking in 2D, wanting to understand the whole 3D reality, we must have the second eye open, otherwise we are going to accept a 3D presentation that isn't 3D.

Basically, the brain can create artificial realities. The good or the bad part about this is that this can be highly beneficial.

• Language is an example of something artificial that is highly beneficial. The sounds end up having meaning for those accepting that meaning. Please recognize the binary system in this. Only after accepting that 1101110100101 has a specific meaning will that combination then end up being understood as such.
• Money is another fantastic creation, and it rose to the top as the most important anything in the world today. Not even love can touch the high position that money takes up. Money is artificial (love is not).

But something very important happens when an artificial creation is collectively accepted. While it is highly beneficial, the individual gave up its free will, so to speak, to participate in the created new reality. The accepted institution receives the power to reject that first belonged to the individual. The individual no longer rejects, while the instrument of money can still reject the individual.

As an example, there is a person behind that rejection when, for instance, not getting a job one applied for, and therefore not getting its financial reward either. But, and this is more important, we can also take it one level up by declaring that money itself has reached a status where no individuals are in specific control anymore. Rather, the system itself has built-in, self-based controls placed on the collective of participants.

Many other examples can be found in which humans ended up accepting artificial realities. Think nations, think religion, think sports, think clothing. Not all bad at all, I hope my point is clear that there strong benefits can be associated with artificial setups.

— -

That brings us back to the brain because we are the ones capable of envisioning and participating in artificial positions and mechanisms. Allow me to portray the models of the brain in various unorthodox manners.

With the decimal system, we basically establish and accept an Egyptian pyramid. We have a lofty point in top for number 1, and when we feel like it we claim that 0 is even higher than the top of the pyramid. The other numbers fall below this pointy top.

In the binary system, that 'natural' top is gone. This is like the Mexican pyramid. There are still layers available, one on top of the other, but the top does not lead to a single position anymore. There is a platform in top. Those continuing to rise from one of the four sides end up on a platform where they will encounter the others that also rose to the 'top' of the Mexican pyramid.

These are two examples of how we can organize our brains, hierarchically. One in top, or various in top.

In that varied top position, we have the ability to envision anything we want, including a top like the Egyptian pyramid. Vice versa, that is not possible. the Egyptian pyramid leads to a winner, a leader.

One can say that the Mexican pyramid showcases a 0 in top that establishes a platform where we can have 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, whatever we so wish.

—

That's it, K. If we reject the Egyptian pyramid as the natural pyramid, but keep it as one of the options to establish if so desired, and accept that the Mexican pyramid is the natural pyramid, then we have the leak above water.

But if we follow the Egyptian pyramid, then we are looking for ways to unify it all beyond natural stature.

—

There is in reality no such thing as a universe. The word is a single word that we can hold inside our brains, but that cannot be something singular. We use the word and we understand the word without any problem. But capturing the universe is not something singular. I hope you see I am teasing you here.

To keep it simple, the human brain can create realities that are not real. Think Cyclopes, just like the ancient Greeks presented them to us. They lived in a geographical area where the singular God started to be revered by other peoples and I am convinced that this is how the Greeks came up with Cyclopes. Like Odysseus, one can get captured by a Cyclops, and it is one hell of a route to escape, but escape one must if we want to understand the universe.

• In short, unification is found in our universe, but only one level below the top. The Mexican pyramid represents the various ways for unification to rise to the highest level.
• We can also use the Egyptian pyramid and make the mistake of wanting to unify it all the way to the top level. It's like taking a man and a woman and being certain we can turn this into a single person.

As Spinoza showed, we can indeed turn a man and a woman into a single person, but only at the abstract level. We can declare both a human being, and the trick is that with this description we removed a specific detail, and moved it up a level.

Einstein did the same. He declared that when we have a problem we cannot solve to then move up one level and the solution would be right there.

Thank you, K, for wanting to read all this. As you can tell, this is not a position one can declare or explain in a single quick reply, so it feels good to me that I was able to write this down. I hope you like it and perhaps can agree to it. That is, if you got the jest of my showing that our understanding the universe is foremost based on understanding how we organize ourselves inside our brains. If we pick the incorrect model, we can never see the whole truth.

Your reply is much appreciated.