Dan had pointed it out earlier one puts a string"QS" Materialanother string"/QS" with the 'square bace character in the place of where I put the """ so for intstance below I could have responded to Crash with
Matchette said on two pages in his Outline ,
The Zero-Atom Unit is, thus, the ultimate divergent of relative existence and in its role as building block is also the "unit of Polarity"; it is so to speak, the "carrier" of the influence of the Absolute throughout the Relative. For the polarization of the entire domain of the relative with the Absolute is effected VIA the Major Polarity coupling with the Zero-Atom Unit with the Absolute. Through this original polarization, "all the progeny" of the Zero-Atom Unit are also polarized with the Absolute. n.b. There is a difference to which we may call attention. Every Zero-Atom Unit is polarized with the Absolute directly, But combinations of Zero-Atom Units are, as entities, polarized with the Absolute directly. But combinations of Zero-Atom Units are, as entites, polarized with the Absolute ONLY through the Zero-Atom Units which compose them. It is in this way..."
and Matchette also said how AND WHY
What THIS interpretation of the ultimate constitution DOES entail, is some specific explanation of WHY these regularities do, in fact, obtain. For the physicist and the chemist, the WHY is forever beyond his apparatus.^13 It is to this domain, out of reach of the physical scientist, that the particular interpretation of the Zero-Atom, dual with the Absolute, as the ultimate constituent of relative existence, is relevant and explantory. For, in the character of the Zero-Ato-Unit, dual with the Absolute, we shall discover the causal substratum for the observed regularities, uniformities and orders of the relative realm.
This is not imagination and speculation but a requirement in the renewed discussion of absolute space and time brought up by Craw when attempting to take into effect the notion of levels of organzation as individuals with specific begninings and endings in empirical space. The other guys/gals here have yet to indicate that I am presenting a consistent view. It is not out of the blue but simply read as is. Crashfrog is simply using the same "prejudice" my two physicist brothers use when discussing change of form with me but I must say BOTH as the interpretation works compared to the Frog in the case that in fact one believes in a GOD and the other is asking.All I need supply is little Mendelian grammetology. All the naysayers can say is that I'vs got the wrong grounded substrate but with Wolfran's new kind of science even this objection is not the lack of understading it may still appear to be. I am still a "master" of this unit or domain.