The problem we all have is that we have grown up with a substantial blind spot that very few people have not yet address.

One who has started to do it is John Conway at Princeton. On a visit a few years ago, I asked him, “What is the most basic structure within space-time?

He answered rather suspiciously, “The tetrahedron.” The answer was too obvious for both of us. He knew another question was coming, “What is most simply and perfectly enclosed within the tetrahedron?” He smiled, “Of course, the four tetrahedron in each corner and the octahedron in the middle.” He then came back to me, “Why do you care?” I replied, “Well, hardly anybody knows that answer intuitively. And the next question is equally simple, but nobody and I mean nobody out of hundreds of scientists, philosopher, mathematicians and even geometers can answer the obvious next question.” He looked puzzled. I continued, “And, if we can’t answer it as quickly as we answer 4-times-4, it is not intuitive.”

So, I then asked, “What is most simply and perfectly enclosed within the octahedron?” He replied, “Well, let’s figure it out” which he quickly and correctly did. But my retort was, “You flunked.”

It was not intuitive.

We simply have not looked inside the most basic structures of science and mathematics, and I would venture to add epistemology, ontology and cosmology. It is a cultural blind spot. And, as a result we really do not understand the boundary condition that is defined by Planck’s constant, sleep, and memory.

Our children should not be playing with squares but with tetrahedrons and octahedrons.

My value equation that comes out of these comments is here:
http://search.smallbusinessschool.org/page869.html

I don’t tried to debunk religions and all the mythopoetics of theology; I try to see inside that rich cultural metaphor.

-Bruce

PS. Here is our future:
http://search.smallbusinessschool.org/page1203.html