topic1: the individual as a limit to infinity's capacity to calculate the evolution of change topic2: evolution as correction of tradition (and infinity as the origin of tradition) vs. creation without precedence or morality because every- thing is supposedly perfect without the need for changing it (nothing ever changes, and new things merely come on the scene with no link to their sequence; they are non-linear and non-linked points of time and space within an all- encompassing field-point); consequently, there is no relationship, or interaction, among points in either time or space; we would all be self- circumscribed; creation never even occurs; everything already exists; order does not exist among events, only chaos and randomness; random events require an all-powerful nature; rules imply a weakness; time has no dimension, it is merely an all-encompassing point. We have a simultaneous existence; we know that two realities are true: something about us never changes, our identity, while something else does, our awareness. An ego results when we think the two are one. Egos can only either die or fracture; they die when they have outlived their purpose; they fracture when their purpose outlives their life. Awareness can only shed its mistaken egos and evolve its sense of self. Since the identity is eternal, this evolution results in an eternal awareness. topic3: in order to solve a problem, the problem must be stated in both known and unknown terms. to simultaneously incorporate both its present mystery as well as its future solution topic1: infinity as a limit to the capacity of an individual to calculate the evolution of change Number theory takes a relative numeric process and defines it as an infinitly cyclic trend. It then interacts it with finite trends. To appreciate some of the limits to which numeric processes can go, requires defining first the limit: infinity. Infinity comes in only one absolute form: itself. But number theory deals with the relatives' interaction with the absolute, so something else is needed to explain the situation: relative infinity(s). There are many questions to ask about relative infinity: How many are there?, What are their types?, What are they defined in terms of?. First of all, they are defined in terms of each other and their premise. Secondly, their premise defines both their types and how many there are. Their premise is a question of perspective: how many points of perspective are there contained within a field of view? Every point of view is a valid reference value, hence there will be as many versions of reality as there are elements points within the field. Only the relativity of the field is limited when a premise is assumed: its number of points of reference or perspective. The inherent quality of the field, irrespective of its choice of relativity, is still infinity. Its subject is the interaction and interrelationships of relative limits to infinite processes. How it chooses to describe itself will be determined by its choice of limit. If we limit ourself to just two reference points, then duality becomes nature's premise within a context of a larger limit imposed, not on infinity, but on the premises's ability to interact with itself. If nature's premise is also predicated on a larger limit to the number of multiple perspectives, then the limit must also be figured in as part of the premise. It so happens that ten is the limit for our reality. Ten being the limit doesn't restrict us to going all the way to define something at all, but is the limit to how far we can go to define something at least. So to define something partly, is to go part way towards the limit in the process of defin- ing. If we limit the extention, or combination, of duality to four, then here is how the definition of four relative infinities would go: transcendence, capacitance, fullness (what we have normally called infinity), and emptiness (what we normally have called zero). The first infinity, of any relative system of infinities, is always the original absolute. In this case, the last three values are relative and interactive; namely, this whole relative picture to the absolute is a combination of all three relative values stated as a phrase: "the capacity for fullness and emptiness is inherently transcendental". Thus, "tran- scendental capacitance" is a different kind of fullness as opposed to fullness alone. Or in the words of a sage, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, in his ?th lesson on "The Science of Creative Intelligence": "fullness of fullness and fullness of emptiness". The breakdown for all four terms goes something like this: Transcendental: beyond all forms and phenomena Capacity: the limit to varying the relative Fullness: the relative as it could be { relatively } Emptiness: the relative as it is. { speaking } The value to having a fundamental predicate beyond all change is the allowance for reality to be infinitly potential within a relative context and infinitly actual in an absolute context. I have just used four terms that are used for different purposes for describing the above four terms: reality: transcendental: absolute: infinitly actual, finitly potential reality: capacitant: relative: infinitly potential, finitly actual reality: full: relative: infinitly potential, finitly actual reality: empty: relative: infinitly potential, finitly actual. The transcendental is a reality which is all-pervadingly inherent. Capacity individuates reality into separately distinct unique values of multivariously faceted fullness and emptiness. The capacity for an individually unique quality results in there being individuals of multiple qualities. The definition of what constitutes an individual is not limited to the animate world. A computer has a distinct capa- city for computation. Under the guise of fundamental differences, unique quali- ties has been restricted to a system of two. Fullness designates vibration as an alternation in time, while function is a product of structured empty space. It may have become obvious by now that all four factors are simultaneously occuring within any relative context. topic3: a problem should be stated in both known and unknown terms in order to "solve" it: go from what is known to what is unknown. It is much easier to solve a polynomial for one of its factors at a time, then it is to solve it for all of its factors simultaneously. The only difference between a polynomial being written in either one or multiple unknowns is: How many factors do you want to solve at once?, or Are the factors simultaneiously occurring and interractive, or are they non- interractive ?-ly? selective possibilities?