## Existence of Unity: actors judged by observers

It is highly advanced, albeit might not look as such. Won’t use sophisticated terms or topology to make it more approachable and comprehensible.

Lets assume unity (1) {*} exists objectively, in Goedel terms. From the objective existence, we deduce we can create another unity.(**) From the existence of unity and (**) we deduce the existence of addition, as just a measure to project the existence of two unities. From the existence of addition and (*) we deduce the existence of integer numbers (***).

Lets now observe the geometrical projection of an integer number. Before we go there, we need to notice one thing. The explanation of this logical step won’t be described here. On a multidimenional field we have 90 carrots, i.e. 2*3^2*5, which makes it possible to use 3 “planes”, each of them described by one of the prime numbers. Forgot to say that (***) leads to the existence of prime numbers.

And, again, we need to notice something. From the existence of the structure of the prime numbers, we derive the earlier introduced R-sequence, which in a straightforward manner defines the way the universe must look like [A] if (*) and (**) are true. And this is the most beautiful conclusion of this post. Why?

Have you been an astronomer in your earlier lives or are you a time traveller?  Planets (and objects in general) move around the center of mass (we can’t deduce why and how it must look like from this post)- as we know from heliocentric model for our galaxy, e.g. the Earth moves around the Sun. This can be generalized to the center of mass. And the universe shifts into red, which (after numerous experiments) led to the fact that the universe is filled with EM waves 2.7K, which then means (using current theories) that it was the point that led to the expansion of the universe. If [A] is true, we could find a point as how to tackle this experimental know-how (scientifically used) to find the right answers.

The idea to re-build the theory is somewhat based on incomplete knowledge problems, like the ones in game theory, including poker or GO. We have a game where it’s very difficult to find an ‘unbeatable strategy’ using an analytic approach only, because of the number of factors. In order to beat the games very much we need to be able to find the spots where our quality of knowledge (certainty) is high and build our approach based on those elements. The same applies everywhere. Building houses on sand is risky.