#universal frames

The scenario I want you to think about is an aggregate of frames. There is nothing in a single frame of a caterpillar that tells you it will become a butterfly, there is nothing in a single frame of butterfly which will show you it can fly. Over a whole lot of frames a relationship is realized of the flying. You will find in the scenario of the universe there is no meaning whatsoever until you get a great many of the special case experiences and intuition on relationships going on. That's why this scenario is so fascinating, because you're looking for relationships all the time, which are being increasingly suggested as probably present. So you see the frames are non-unitarily conceptual. Single frames are unitarily conceptual. So the universe is defined by Einstein as non-unitarily conceptual, an aggregate of finites which is eternally regenerative. My informational experience from the brain are always terminal, so all my inputs are finite. So I'd like to define the physical and metaphysical universe. Experience has no meaning until we can relate some communication of it. That is it's beginning, is communication. Experience is a communication, I think I could combine the metaphysical and the physical by saying it is then the aggregate of humanities constantly aberrating communicating experiences, which are an aggregate of a non-simultaneously zooeciopathic overlapping events. I see then each experience begins and ends, nature is in effect terminal, an aggregate of finite. So I said then, what is conceptual, and what then is thinkable? I'm now perusing a grand strategy, having now established at least a definition of the universe, which has a lot of actual input about what it is, to know it's behavior as a whole, knowing what it as a whole is, then now I can learn something about the parts. What other parts do I know something about? I then come to the extraordinary phenomena you and I call thinking. Throughout the whole of me thinking out loud with you, you are going to find that I always come back to an experiential base. I don't deal with any axioms, I don't say that anything is self-evident, I don't say anything 'I' believe. I can hypothesize, that this may be an explanation for what we're experiencing, but I have to say that's a guess, it's an informed guess. I will always be dealing in an experiential strategy and I am now doing everything that I can to understand how we can develop a synergistic grander strategy on approaching problem solving by the human mind.