How to make 0 of 1

After making a few comments on two quotes from Chaitin’s Meta Math!, I will offer everyone looking for simple, unifying ideas a way to make 1 and 0 natural numbers in the sense of being exact images of the most basic physical event there is.

After all, math deals with the world of ideas, which transcends

the real world. And for “God” you can understand the laws of the universe,

as Einstein did, or the entire world, as Spinoza did, that doesn’t change the

message.

To say math deals with something that trancends the real world is prone to be misunderstood if not specifying what exactly is required for something to be ”real”. One can easily read that “ideas” are not real, and then argue that the neural activity related to thinking is indeed real. It is also problematic to assume there is some interface which has reality on one side and ideas on the other. As far as I can see, that leaves us with the tedious old dispute about “media” and “ether” and how separate entities communicate and so on and so forth. It’s a dead end. Further, to separate the physical world/universe from their alleged laws makes for more problems, especially if the Godlike laws are supposed not to change the message. I will hold that the fundamental laws are descriptions of indisputable, physical events which are in and of themselves very simple. What we conventionally think of as “laws” are rather consistency in relative effects. I will also hold that the message is the messenger, just as I believe that Jesus Christ is God.

I am always searching for simple, unifying ideas, rather than

glorying intellectually in “polytheistic” subjects like biology, in which there

is a rich tapestry of extremely complicated facts that resists being reduced

to a few simple ideas.

I share this preference for absolute simplicity. Reason is that I believe the Singularity of Einstein’s GR is definitely real. If so, it makes no sense at all to philosophize about the Singularity in terms of complexity and a plurality of concepts like zero point, universal string, infinite density, boundary, heat etc. Rather one should make an effort to condense all these concepts into that which can generate and rule them all. That is to figure out which concepts are pointing to the same “unknown”. By doing so, I have come to the conclusion that there is ultimately just two qualities of reality; one is extension and the other relaxation. If you really want to simplify the fundamental state of affairs, getting rid of contraction and gravity helps a lot. This is not a new idea since already Ezekiel in his vision kept repeating that: And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go, without turning as they went.… Whenever they moved, they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved.…

Now, Ezekiel said a lot of thing which I do not understand correctly, not yet, but one thing we definitely agree on is this: … for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels.… Indeed it is, and I can tell you why this is so. And you will definitely not believe one single word of it.

To generate one 2D surface of space, we need one axis of rotation. That axis is an imaginary straight line written as I or 1. At this moment, there is no zero because the sphere equator has not yet extended from rotation. We might say that there is an invisible space, or potential space, waiting to be spaced out by fundamental force of rotation. So the shape of things to come rests in the momentarily undetectable sphere which is in equilibrium and thus void of energy.

extension1to0

Now, if we let this 1 rotate, there is likely to emerge an equatorial bulge. This horizontal bulge is the emergence of space extension. It is the emergence of zero as comprising “everything”, because empirical reality is all of these momentary extensions. If there ever was a perfect sphere, we would not be able to detect it. This act of disappearing by means of geometry is the cause of quantization and the dreaded “gaps” in physical reality.

Since a quantum of action, which is Singularity, is finite, there can be no horizontal extension without a proportional compression of its vertical axis. So as empirical reality extends as a circular horizon, at its center there is the compression of 1 axis. In this way the 1 axis is continuously translated into a circular horizon. This is how electricity is perpendicular to magnetism, and so kinetic energy grows perpendicular to the growth of potential energy.

But to keep it simple, there is just the fact that if rotation flattens a sphere out into a disc, there will be compression at the disc center. Perhaps a better way to say is that tension is greater at the perimeter of the disc. Whichever way we phrase it, 2D extension is not forever. Flat is as far as it gets. Then what? Now we have translated the axis I into a much wider surface perimeter, symbolized by the all encompassing circle O. Reality is but an ocean of such momentary extensions, but it is not static. It breathes and has a lot of spirit, right?

Well, lets have a phase/face inversion so that potential energy (compression) is released, bidirectional and perpendicular to the extended horizon. What is likely to happen is that space seems to “shrink” and there is empirical “contraction”. But to invoke “gravity” is a big mistake. Perhaps the biggest of mistakes. There is no force which “pulls” space out of sight. Instead we have built up energy potential which has to be released. Otherwise we need some influx of force to keep the unit flat. As we know pretty well, the flow of reality seems to prefer a spherical shape, and now you can figure out why. That is because axial compression, enforced by fundamental force of rotation, has a limit to how compressed 1 can be. The poles/ends of the axis can meet at the very center of the fully extended space/horizon, but compression cannot pass through compression. Instead I suggest the poles will “bounce” off each other, and as they do, they will take the horizon with them.

From that “bounce”, the all encompassing O of space will gradually shrink and be quantized. So in this way, zero translates to an increasing axis I. The trick here is to realize that 1 is never to be detected as empirical reality. The 1 is of a sphere, not a prolate ellipsoid. In a physical sense, there is nothing >1.

relaxation0to1

The God I have found is of this invisible 1. And as explicitly stated in Genesis, creation grows by cutting itself down, not in 2, but in another 1. This is how one quanta breaks down to numerous quanta, and they all spin. Mathematicians like Tarski and Banach has shown how to make a sun by cutting up a pea and rotating the pieces. Math is just as real as the world of ideas. Reality cannot trancend itself, and it cannot fool itself.

What is NOT real is the “You” who is believed to read this post. Self-reference of human mind is the fool. Were was “You” at the moment of Singularity? What was there to eventually generate this “You” of “Yours”? Nah, forget it. “You” will never know it. In fact, you can never know it. Why? Because, if the above is actually true, IT is what knows “you”. “You” are IT, appearing and responding to context as “You”. 1 when invisible. 0 when obvious. Oscillations….lots of them….billions, and the relative image of stable matters which is an effect of them being so many. As the beginning (and end), the many are but 1, and The One is a moment of perfect equilibrium and universal unity. Force of rotation makes The One a black hole sun, a sun disc…The Only Son. So God anoints Himself, smears Himself out, into the presence of Light. Booom, Big Bang….Fiat Lux. Light is a wobbling Zero, coming from and going back to the invisible One.
Ultimately, This is of course the same body as That.
Reality hides by being Everything.
Jesus Christ hides by being God.
Light hides by being quantized.
Space hides….in time.

Nonsense…..

 

 

Singularity evaluated

This just came to mind:

The relevant values of a singularity are:

.5 and 1.5 

.5 is its wavelength

1.5 is its frequency

That’s why the speed of light is 3. It takes for the singularity to break in 2 before the light goes on. When broken  (in a Big Bang – is event) we get the corresponding values:

1 wavelength

3 frequency

This Mother Duality relates to 1 Planck Length. It is data from 2 surfaces side by side. Each unit surface is half a Planck Length in diameter. That makes its radius .25 “long”. A circle of r.25 has a circumference of 1.5 and 2 of those makes the magic number 3.

This is why 3 is the speed at which light travels 1 Planck Length in 1 Planck Time. Singularity is simply half a Space in half a Time. Obviously enough, light as such a single quantized package of 2 singularities does not travel at all. It is all of space at once. Time as we know it is not part of this picture.

The speed of light is of zero time. Speed is a measure of the distance covered, at once, by object X. 3 is the total perimeter distance of 2 flat surfaces with radii .25. That’s the values of a bosonic duality being of 2 monopoles/singularities.

But do the math based on these values alone and you will soon get the numbers of time popping up. I will try it myself and see what happens. I expect no surprises but only familiar numbers of the time domain.

EDIT!
It can be simplified to .5 wavelength and .5 frequency. Each phase relates to radius .5.
When frequency, the .5 is half the length of a linear pole.
When wavelength, the .5 is distance from zero point to perimeter of the circular 2D surface.
The initial state singularity alternates therefore between .5 frequency/spin/magnetism and .5 wavelength/extension/charge.
It begins with 1/2 time and 1/2 space, from a relative perspective that is. From an absolute standpoint that’s an absurd statement. It is better to say the initial state singularity is Alternating Force of One.

How energy works

This Friday Fun will be to get rid of both energy and work. I’ve never liked how those concepts are used so I thought it best to weed them out of physics. They create more confusion than most other ideas. People use these concepts in various ways, and every time the word “energy” or “work” comes up, it is usually followed by “… depending on how you define…”. That alone suggests there’s something fishy going on here. From the excellent Physics Hypertextbook comes the following definition:

A system possesses energy if it has the ability to do work.

Work shifts energy from one system to another.

Energy is…

  • a scalar quantity,

  • abstract and cannot always be perceived,

  • given meaning through calculation,

  • a central concept in science.

 

Not attacking this definition, what’s wrong in the above? Well, first of all, the notion of “a system” is misleading. Since we are yet to discover a system in perfect isolation, there is no “a system” in the universal system. And if there was such a non-interactive system, it would stop being “a system” at the moment of detection. If we can measure it, we have a situation where the imagined boundaries of systems (observed and observing) are crossed from both sides, and then there is no definite boundary. The there is the idea of “possession” which is totally out of order. Any conceived system is of energy, and cannot be reasonably understood as a system (non-energetic) which has energy. Whatever this system is, it is of energy. It could not exist without being of energy. That is, existence of X requires X to be of both kinetic and potential energy in some proportions. If it is totally balanced, it is physically dead, and if it is totally unbalanced, it is a monopole. Every thing/system in-between dead and monopole is both kinetic and potential in itself. There’s no thing that can exist as having or not having energy. If it exists, it is the ability to do work. And speaking of “work”, if system X is the ability to do work, it need not “do” any work. All it has to “do” is to be what it is. In other words, no system can choose to “do” or “not do” its work. Therefore we can revise the definition accordingly:

A system is possesses energy if it has the ability to do work.

Work Systems shifts energy from one system to another.

With that out of the way, we can finally ask ourselves – what is work?
My answer is: Work is changing the relations of contraction and extension. That’s it.

There’s nothing “doing” this changing.
Change is enforced by the reality of existence.
If it exists, it will change and be changed.
The system does what the system is.
The system is contracting/potential and expanding/kinetic.

The pole is not the point

I’m having some difficulties in explaining to pro’s in physics what I mean with a Monopole. It seems they are looking for a point while I’m looking at, well…a pole actually. State of the art research papers keep validating my perspective on these elusive entities, but the authors themselves appear somewhat mystified. Perhaps it would help if they imagined their data to relate to a pole instead of a point?
Always trying to be of help, I will now offer the idiots (that’s me, not the scientists) 101 on monopoles.

polepoint

The above image is not how a monopole is described in physics and math. It sounds a bit strange perhaps, but this is how our friends in the Cold lab’s looks at it:

Ordinarily, magnetic poles come in pairs: they have both a north pole and a south pole. As the name suggests, however, a magnetic monopole is a magnetic particle possessing only a single, isolated pole—a north pole without a south pole, or vice versa.

 

So their monopoles are believed to be isolated points, being either sout or north. Perhaps this is because physics have adopted a lot of thinking that belongs to mathematics, not physics. In math, a pole is not a pole at all, but a particular singularity of a meromorphic function. The link to singularity is natural and valuable, because my very physical pole is, when in isolation and not in a pair, an essential singularity. But for now let’s stay physical. So the real monopole has no less than 2 ends to it. I repeat for clarity:
A Monopole has 2 ends of 1 extension.
A Monopole is NOT an isolated point.

 

EMpoleduality

The above image is a revision of Wikipedias piece on Monopoles. If you look it up, you will see that everything is backwards in the conventional picture where poles are believed to be points. From that perspective, I can easily understand why uniting electricity and magnetism is so difficult.
If we make a pole a pole, it is not difficult at all.

And as always I remind you of the fact that a single monopole, like the one pictured here, is likely to exist only once, and that would be as an initial universal state. A single monopole is not possible in a universe that is already evolving and “in space”. The single monopole is of such force that only itself can break it apart, and that is what symmetry breaking is about. But in my model, there’s no small quantum fluctuations that does it. Instead it is an inevitable effect caused by the forced geometry of the monopole/singularity and the sequence in which it operates.

But for now, the take away message is that a monopole is a pole of frequency, not a mathematical point, and that the pole itself, by spin, extends a surface of currency as it contracts towards its mean length.
And no, all notions of space are misleading since the singular monopole is non-dimensional.

Guten abend Prof. Riemann

Guten abend Prof. Riemann

Ever since I “got it” 4 years ago, I’ve been looking for a way to express it in various ways. Everyday language is pretty useless, and everyone who “gets it” knows this for sure. In the Zen tradition this pofound inability to express in words what is beyond words is often pictured in short stories. My favourite is this:

Student: What is truth?
Master: Truth is like a river.
Student: How do you mean “like a river”?
Master: Ok, truth is not like a river.

So however you phrase it, it’s not that. You must rely on metaphors and pointers to have the listener find out for herself. There is no other way it seems. But I’m not here to tell you about Zen. I am fool enough to …well, perhaps I am here to tell you about Zen. Zen is whatever happens so there’s no way out of it really.

Chinese Chan master Yiduan (I-tuan, 9th century), a disciple of Nanquan, declared: “Speech is blasphemy! Silence is a lie! Above speech and silence, there is a way out.”

True that, and I’m falling inside out of that door way, so in which direction should I point my finger? Well, ultimately that’s a trick question because there is no door way. There is no way “out” of that which you are always “in”. Forget that and forget the “you” asking all the questions. Let’s go answering instead.
One way of answering is to ask great minds what they don’t know. To know what is not known is probably better than to know a lot. It narrows the search. So let’s ask one of our greatest minds, Bernhard Riemann, what he didn’t know most of all. It turns out he didn’t know for sure if all the zeros of his famous Z-function has the real part 1/2. If you’re not a fan of mathematical enigmas, this is irrelevant. But if you are, you know that proving the Riemann Hypothesis is the Big One in the field. Pro’s has been obsessed by it for decades, but no one seems able to hack it. Bets are on and stakes are high. More than a few insiders believes it is impossible to prove this beast of a function in the way Riemann himself thought of as perhaps possible.

So why would I even bother to look t it? I may be dumb as a rock, but I’m not stupid enough to think I could prove it, because I can’t. Full. Stop. First of all, I hardly know math well enough to count change at the grocery store. Secondly, I know no one who is willing to help me understand it in a formally accepted and correct way. As with physics, I mix it up as I go along and rarely follow the beaten paths of the professionals. I always get lost in complexity when I try. So I stay simple and follow my nose. This doesn’t mean I can’t hack it, because I can. It means no one credible in academia would ever look at my layman doodles. And honestly, who can blame them?

Never the less, here’s my basic message to my dear friend BR: Your hypothesis is definitely on track and all zeros will indeed have real part 1/2. Thing is, I must be rude enough to wreck your complex image to show you why. The reason for this is that the rotation at hand is of a peculiar kind. It is of a monopole, not a known particle or measurable spinor. To throw in a pole in a complex image is sort of how it’s done, so nothing new there. But I’m afraid this one is like an essential singularity with some geometry missing. To picture stuff that has no place in space can be a challange. It messes with the values on X and Y, but what can you do? We’re talking quantum stuff here, and those guys do not behave as expected. Not with any certainty at least. It is also tricky to picture it right when you’re dealing with “time”. Sure time goes around, and the complex rotation goes around, but time is also an arrow of sorts. In this case it means I will throw away what roates a soon as it has made uni verse (one turn). I hope you’ll excuse me for this, but I have thrown a monopole on the table and it just won’t sit still and spin within the image frame. I seems to oscillate, as a light switch going on/off, and to runs off mixing with other values. Most of all, it is never ever alone, so I would need two images to picture something relating to the physical world as we measure it. Then I could show you a photon perhaps.

CPRZ
A simple complex image, essentially being a singularity

So Prof. Riemann, there’s a pdf with my monopole/singularity to look at, and below I have copy/pasted a few words from it. Again, this will not make sense without thinking of a physical entity, or half physical perhaps. As a mathematical proof it is of course an obvious failure. But I like to think math has emerged from human mind, and that human mind is the mind of physical reality. Claiming we are the reality that is being pictured in our math and science, one thinks naturally that math is not abstract or un-natural in any way. In reality, everything is equally real, including the complex plane. What I allowed myself to do was to add a little quantum mystery to it. Mystery or not, the blue surface is what eventually builds space and the primes will come from that building. But to do that we would need 3 such surfaces to make an atom, and this is the image of 1. I’d like to show you how the 1 really looks like, but perhaps you already know it has no surface when really being the only 1. My image is of course based on how 1 appears together with 1, but so do all our images don’t they.

There’s a hole  the picture, I know that, and perhaps there has to be. I know you are a religious man Professor, and if you so wish, please insert a Holieness in that hole. I’d love that image. But not to scare away the secular  minds of today, I might choose to regard it “silent frequency” or Father Time to reconcile. I guess Dirac would call it a drop in the ocean. And knowing God as I imagine you do, I assume you know the quantity of 1 better than most. That’s a good thing. Half the seen world and half the unseen always adds up to 1 doesn’t it?

Oh, one more thing. Having XY never go beyond 1+1i  is not only to stay true to the one, but will save some space and keep us on comfortable distance from relativity’s fractions. The big numbers and tedious decimals come later, with the many poles as numerous di-poles. I claim the original complex image should be extraordinarily simple.
A one timer, then….Bang.
Lights On.

RZF_CP

Riemann hypothesis is true in quantum physics.
A real surface is the 2D extension of a spinning monopole. The least real value is 1 since monopoles are not of fractions. All real measurables are of positive values. Negative values are of surface rotation in real quarter. Rotational values must be calculated separately from extensional values. There are 2 zeros relating to the monopoles binary nature. The definite XY Zero is of the monopole as less than real space measurable. The relative .5,.5=1 is the zero in the so called critical strip. Any monopole extension will generate a real quantum of measurable space with the real value 1. All real values 1 of the Z-function will thus show up as having real part .5 in the complex image. The imaginary values are related to the empirically undetectable zero point with definite XY=0. XY=0 is not measurable since it is a point entity which defines the zero limit where the monopole extension does not generate spatial dimensionals. As a real space value 1, the pole frequency of the extended surface wavelength 1 is silent to observation. The silent value relates to uncertainty in measurement and likely to phenomena such as parity, antimatter, flux tube, wormhole and inversion of signs. As the monopoles surface extension is real space, the internal silent zero spin should be understood as real time/frequency. Pi is corrected to be 3 because the extension radius .5 is when including the zero points radius .2. But .2 has no real space value so r.5 is dimensionally r.3 (red dotted circle). When extension is measured as real surface, there is loss of zero point values .2 i.e. the time/frequency values, indicated by red lines. This can be understood as the zero point frequency of any real space that cannot be dimensioned as space itself. Therefore, Pi decimals are added as time, inherent in every basic quantum of space generated by monopoles extensions.

The point of reversals

Here’s an idea of the point/meaning of spacetime. It is the same point really, but is has two faces/phases, and we can only see one of them. We can see “space” by looking at real stuff. We might think that the stuff we see is moving about “in” space, as if there was some thing like space that could have stuff in it. That’s because we forget, or choose not to acknowledge, that “dimension” means “measurement”. So it is kind of missing the point to keep measuring a measurement. What we are doing is of course measuring/dimesioning the stuff that has the quality of extension.
It is the objects that have space, not space that has objects.

Anyways, the very scientific and artsy image is of something we can call “zero point”. That term is already occupied with meaning and misconceptions, so it is not that zero point. Don’t google “zero point” whatever you do. And if you already have, forget it. This is, as of today, the enigmatic Monopole. But it is also singularity, the cosmic string, charge, spacetime, entanglement, time reversal, Speed of Light, wavelength/frequency, matter/antimatter and ….you.  But to get “you” and all other real stuff, we must have more than one single point. Everything real is combinations of many points sharing their wavelengths. That sharing is the so called unified field of empirical reality. In this One entangeled field, you will never find One single point. We can never find a monopole or a singularity, because they always come in at least a pair, possibly as “photons”. String theory’s one cosmic string is essentially a circular extension of a prime monopole/singularity that breaks by internal oscillations and becomes 2 monopoles extensions. There’s IMO only one instance when all points are unified into One Single Point.
You’ve guessed it, the initial unknown before the “Big Bang”. But that story is for later. Today we live in a reality where the many spinning zeros make an awesome flow of forward charge.

The image below is just food for thought. Think of it as an elastic sphereoid of contraction that spins so fast that its equator extends. Then imagine that, at the same time, the both ends of the same pole, that now runs through its extension, must close in on each other. It is one single point where extension as a circle and contraction as a straight line happens at once. It extends exactly as much as it contracts and vice versa. But the opposite directions of extension/contraction happens in opposite locations of the point.
Never the less, and this here is the tricky part so sit still and hold on to your ears; the 2 negative polarizations and the 1 positive extension are of the same point/unit. It is not like sphere + rings with some appearent gap between the parts that make up “Saturn”. All measurables and “dimensions” coming from this point come from the same source.

If we relate the image to string theory, I suggest strings are of the red perimeters that are wavelengts. The actual waving of the smooth perimeter comes from multiple points showing combined perimeters that lights up in complex sequences. A system of communicating extensions, they always communicate/relate, could perhaps behave like a “closed” string of an arbitrary volume/space. Then “open” strings would be all extensions not possible to define as belonging to a closed set with relevant values in uniform. But I know very little of string theory so just taking an intuitive stab at it. Basically there would be only one truly closed string i.e. the pre-big bang cosmic string/ring/surface.
Don’t know formal geometry either so “prolate/oblate” might be “ellipsoid” to the pro’s. I know “Point” is worthless to many in math because you cannot describe dimansions by means of a point, since the very definition of a mathematical point is that it has zero dimensions. Well, I’m not looking at that which has dimensions. I am looking at that which generates dimensionables.

Stop staining the picture with dimensions. I just put them there to show where masurements/dimensions are made possible. In the single point, there is nothing to measure. You must have 2 point before they realize their extensions as reality. One single point is the One Singularity without a reality to exist in.
Keep calm and count to 1.
The many points are not The Point.
Once they were and Once they will return.
But first, just an idea looking like this:

point phases

To have ones mind changed

When believe something, I really believe that. Until I don’t. Then I really believe something else. If I believe that I know X, I will act as if that was true. As if I really knew X. If I believe I don’t know X, I will act as if that was true. As if I really don’t know X.
What X really is, X only knows.
X is probably X.

Since I was old enough to contemplate existence and what existence really is, I have gone through a lot of beliefs, and I promise you, I believed them all equally much. One such belief was that the story of Big Bang was totally unbelievable. I found, and still find, a thousand reasons not to believe it. I will spare you the details, and I’m sure you know most of them. Or so I really believe anyway.

Come a moment in life when a certain belief changes shape and colour. It might still be the same belief, but something has drastically changed. In the case of my dis-belief in the Big Bang story, the change is not the Big Bang itself, but what the Big Bang is about. Suddenly I find myself believing it was actually so. It was a Big Bang-ish event which kicked off the universe as we know it. But having learned more about the concepts involved and how we argue about them, I have found that the problem is not the Big Bang but how the story is told. It is as unbeliavable today as it has been for all of my life. But today I believe myself to know better why the story sounds like science fiction and why it doesn’t make any sense.

The Big Bang story suffers credibility mainly because we cannot tell the story of singularity in a reasonable way. And since singularity is a “big” player in Einsteins wonderful universe of relativity, we think it is BIG. We forget that the singularity might just be a player, and the size comes from the way it plays. We understand universe from our point of view. Science prides itself of being objective and non-egocentric, but that’s educated bullshit.
A measuring device might be objective, but the detectors don’t interpret data.
A computer tells no story and explains nothing.
It computes.
A scientist is not objective.
A scientist is a scientist.

Today I believe in the so called Big Bang, but that is not from what science tells me about it. What has changed my mind is what science doesn’t tell me. It says a lot about singularities in theory. There’s a library full of books on singularity.
Gravitational singularity.
Mathematical singularity.
Naked singularity.
Technological singularity.
Then we are told “No one knows a singularity. It is beyond description. The laws of the universe break down in the singularity. It writes its own laws and we have no access to the laws of the singularity

Then I think this: They are looking at God.

The way mind responds to the singularity reminds me of how it responds to some imagined entity which is supposed to be The Beginning.
“In the beginning there was” ….and then the stories diverge. But they are trying to describe the same event.
The Beginning.
After all the books are written, all arguments thrown on the table, all storytellers end their tale with a common disclaimer:
-The Beginner of Beginning is not to be understood.
-The Singular God is beyond conventional mind of mankind.
Still, they have their theories of what this unknown creator created first.
Bible says that “heaven and earth” cames first.
Science prefer to begin with “light”.
Bible says “God did it”.
Science says “We don’t know, but we’re working on it”.

Then I encountered the Monopole and it changed my mind.
It was a Big Bang-ish event.
Heaven and earth is probably prior to light, but light is true while heaven and earth is a metaphor. Both camps win. Both camps lose. Fair deal. At least fair enough methinks.
The discription of a Monopole fits the Wanted! ad to a T.

WANTED!
One undetectable character
One force to unite them all
A master of disguise
Extremely powerful
Carries a Holy Grail full of answers
Description: Looks a lot like “Nothing”

So what is a “monopole” then?
It is what it is.
A monopole is a monopole.
I have no addition to what wikipedia says, and you can look that up for yourself.
The question is – how well does that descripition fit the descriptions of God and Singularity. That’s a matter of opinion and belief.
Today, in my opinion, I believe God is a Monopole Singularity.
I believe in Gods, Monopoles and Singularities.
Heureka as well as Halleujah.
I believe One multiplies as many Ones.
I believe many Ones does This.
I believe the many Ones are of two faces/phases.
Matter/anti-matter
One/Zero
Extension/Contraction
All of One (not “in” One)
All as Once (not “at” once)

But only in The Beginning is the One all alone.
So One breaks into Light
Light enlightens all forms of reality
Reality is this Enlightenment
One shines as many Ones
One eventually gathers itself
The many Ones again becomes the Only One
Light returns itself to the source
Relightenment
The One Pole attracts every Little One
Then…what we cannot understand, because there is no “where” to stand.
There are no relatives to the One Alone, so theories of relativity are silenced.
There are no quantities, so quantum theory are silenced.
As a fact, “there” does not apply.
As a fact, “is” does not apply.
As a fact, “One” does not apply.
What applies is Action. That does it. Action.
Not action potential because this reality can not be. It has to be.
Reality must be inevitably enforced, not optional.
Option implies a choise, a decision and intention. Believing this is so, God, Singularity and Monople line up to enter stage. But there is no stage and no One to enter.
Stage One comes later. Big comes with the Bang, but not yet.

This is what makes it difficult to describe. We are trying to imagine action without an actor. We know there is no one physically there to do it, but we know it is done.
So we imagine Force, which is not that hard. But then the mistake of mind.
We attatch some thing that is forceful, as to “have” force.
Always looking for the doer of what is done.
God is forceful
Singularities are forceful
Monopoles are forceful
We believe that if there is force, some thing has to be full of it.
If there is walking, there has to be a walker.

Today I believe that as The Beginning was what walks the walker.
The coming of what comes.
The going of what goes.
The around of all.

The Beginning comes around and goes around
Today that is…