According to the argument I have been putting forward here, we "create"
number when we step outside of the ‘whole’ that is represented by
(Lofting’s T6), since by doing so we enter the 7th-dimension—in which case
the  "observer" self here, in conjunction with the ‘pure time’ of the
9th-dimension, can collapse the wave function on "number" in the opposite
3rd-dimension (T3). If we wish, we can step outside the ‘whole’ again and
again—and in this way even posit the existence of infinity!  This is due to
the part played by 8 (‘contained’ at level 3 -- where there are eight
states which when placed in the context of each other cell  create
sixty-four possible states), since it is 8 that serves to *mediate* between
T6 and T12!  
Recall that in the 8th-/2nd dimension complementarity there exist, by
implication, two psychophysical ‘surface differentiations’ (i.e. each
representing 50 per cent of the whole, the 1st-dimension!). The point is
that here the "Now" (of the 8th-dimension), by virtue of its collapsing the
wave function vis-a-vis a ‘surface differentiation’, can be apprehended
both extrinsically (i.e. by the 12th-/8th-dimension ‘visual’ "observer")
and/or intrinsically (e.g. in the 6th-/2nd dimensions, say, as a ‘harmonic
resonance’ that is experienced by the ‘surface differention’ of a
phenotype, -- or by its audition-system).
                                                   ## <.> ##

GR describes space and time and QM, the most accurate branch of science,
describes how microscopic things behave—and yet the two theories are
incompatible.  GR says that everything is well-defined—particles have a
definite position and momentum (and this can be worked out from how the
space is distorted), and yet QM says that this is impossible.  The effects
of GR are seen most dramatically on the largest scales, of stars and
galaxies.  Einstein saw these objects as distortions in what he called
‘space-time’, a four-dimensional fabric that makes up the universe.
Quantum theory, on the other hand, comes into its own at the smallest
possible scales, describing the behaviour of the fundamental particles such
as electrons and quarks which make-up us and everything around us.  Many
people have searched for a way of unifying these two apparently
contradictory theories
In a recent Ph.D. thesis, Mark Hadley (Warwick University) has hypothesized
that each fundamental particle is a curled-up ball of space-time.  Within
particles, he suggests, time goes round in a closed loop—though he
confesses that he finds ‘visualizing’ a distorted and knotted space-time
extremely difficult.  Nevertheless, if time is twisted round in an
elementary particle, then in principle an experiment that we think is
happening in the future can actually be influencing this particle even now.
 Briefly, he argues that within every fundamental particle there is a sort
of ‘time machine’ (essentially that is what a closed time loop is).  
Concepts like warped space-time and closed time loops are more usually
associated with black holes.  So is Hadley suggesting that a microscopic
fundamental particle is anything like a gigantic star-consuming black hole?
 In one way he is, because these time machines within fundamental particles
would have to be screened, otherwise if the effect of them leaks into the
outside world it would play havoc with cause and effect.  Hadley simply
suggests that this ‘screening’ might occur as the result of an event
horizon (which is the ‘membrane’ that actually shields a black hole from
the outside world).  
Clearly, though, with a black hole there is an incredible density which
causes space-time to warp, and therefore the closed time lines to appear.
Does the same thing exist within fundamental particles?  The answer is that
nobody knows.  We simply do not know how small an electron is.  It could be
dense enough to cause space to warp around it.  (Recall that in Chapter
XIII "Far-from-Equilibrium Systems", I suggest that it may be the
interaction of gravitation with the Van der Waal’s forces (which is an EM
force that holds electrons together and falls off "like the inverse seventh
power of the distance") that may explain the phenomenon of the "observer"
in the 7th-dimension).
Certainly, Hadley has not found a solution for Einstein’s equations of GR
that describes a time-like loop, a ‘time machine’.  In principle, though,
they are not forbidden (i.e. one of the features of GR is that time is
symmetrical with respect to pasts and future).  Of course, electrons and
quarks do not just behave as fundamental particles, they are also described
in terms of waves. Though we can comprehend some ‘point’ as having a huge
density and closed time line, trying to translate this into a wave moving
through space is quite another thing.  But a consequence of wave-particle
duality and the fact that we cannot pin down simultaneously the position
and velocity of fundamental particles is that they become ‘fuzzy’ (at the
microscopic level, at the Planck scale).  And it is precisely this that
Hadley’s idea of there being a ‘time machine’ within fundamental particles
helps to explain (argues Marcus Cheown, Cosmology Consultant at New
Scientist).  
Because time has no meaning for fundamental particles, they can actually
communicate with the future or the past.  Thus, they can be influenced by
events in their future.  Cheown says: "It is as if my state here today—that
is, whether I am dead or alive—depends upon an event tomorrow (e.g. whether
I was run over or not run over), rather than an event in the past.  The
hypothesis is that since tomorrow I cannot simultaneously be run over and
not run over, my state today could be ill-defined.  In the same way, the
properties of electrons and quarks, their velocity and their position, may
also be ill-defined, just because these properties are determined by events
in their future".  This is precisely the problem that the 12-dimensional
template resolves, I argue, by unifying GR and QM.  Hitherto it has been
assumed that QM is the more fundamental theory, since it explains so much
(e.g. why the ground is solid under our feet, why the sun shines --  It has
provided the basis for computers, lasers, and many other things); and for
this reason it has been assumed that GR, Einstein’s theory of gravity,
would eventually have to come into line.  
However, Hadley is saying the opposite.  These closed time-like loops,
these time machines, are actually a consequence of GR—and so all of the
quantum properties are also a consequence of GR. In other words, GR is the
fundamental theory, and everything else is derived from it.  As we know,
Einstein himself objected to quantum theory—the theory that replaces the
certainty of  ‘classical’ physics with probabilities and chance—and he
famously said that "God does not play dice" with the universe.  Thus,
Cheown points out, if Hadley should eventually turn out to be right, it
would constitute a vindication of the position that Einstein held
throughout his life.
In fact, since the 12-dimensional template incorporates all possible modes
of time and space/energy, as well as demonstrating how these are unified
non-linearly, a corollary of this is that, depending on one’s ‘point of
view’, [LH ‘classical’] GR and [RH] QM are both correct—up to a (different
explicate) point.
                                                   ## <.> ##

In "The Interconnected Universe" (1995) by Ervin Laszlo, there is an
addendum by Attila Grandpierre (Konkoly Observatory, Budapest) regarding
calculation of correlations between the quantum vacuum (information) and
the brain.  Based on a match for comparable magnitudes Grandpierre finds
his results not only possible, but plausible, e.g. the calculation is valid
in both directions: I:O.  Cf. Also Hameroff and Penrose (1996): "Aspects of
quantum theory (e.g. quantum coherence) and of the suggested physical
phenomenon of quantum wave function ‘self-collapse’ (objective reduction
OR—Penrose, 1994; 1996) are essential for consciousness, and occur in
cycloskeletal microtubules (MTs) and other structures within each of the
brain’s neurons".
                                                   ## <.> ##

Some of the limitations of 10-dimensional string theory have recently been
overcome in M-theory—said to be close to a ‘theory of everything’—and in an
article entitled "Into the Eleventh Dimension", thre Superstring theorist,
Michio Kaku, writes:
"Today’s excitement has grown from the finding that if we postulate the
existence of a mysterious M-theory in 11 dimensions we can show that the
five competing string theories are actually different versions of the same
thing.  Like a Roman general surveying the battlefield from the third
dimension, physicists today stand on the hilltop of the 11th dimension and
see the five superstring theories below, unified into a simple, coherent
picture, representing different aspects of the same thing.
" ... what precisely is M-theory?   So far, we only know fragments of the
theory (the low-energy part).  We are still waiting for someone to come up
with a full description of M-theory.  Last year, Vafa shocked physicists by
announcing that there may be a 12-dimensional theory lurking out there,
which he called "F-theory" (F for father)" (New Scientist, Vol 153, No 206,
pp 32 - 36, 18/1/97).
Elsewhere Kaku notes about string theory: "the string, about 100 billion
billion times smaller than a proton, is vibrating [and] each mode of
vibration represents a distinct resonance, or particle."  He compares this
resonance to notes and harmonies produced by violin strings, and states
that the harmonies produced by the strings are not "fundamental to the
nature of the strings ... likewise, the particles of the universe are not,
by themselves, fundamental... in fact, according to this theory, matter is
nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string" (Hyperspace: A
Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth
Dimension.  New York: Doubleday (by arrangement with Oxford University
Press), 1994, p. 153).  The theory not only explains the "richness of the
particles in nature" but, "likewise, the laws of physics can be compared to
the laws of harmony allowed on the string.  The universe itself, composed
of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony" (p.
154).   
                                               ## <.> ##

It was Pythagoras who made the first measurement in the West by recording
the intervals (jumps, spaces) between notes—leading to his theory of
everything—embracing the whole of knowledge as it was then available.
After Aristotle and the empiricists’ attention to entities (rather than the
spaces/intervals between them) a ‘whole physics’ was created in the West
which suppressed the auditory in favour of the visual (Newton’s "objects"
moved by invisible—literally "unseen" not unheard—forces, although we note
the lingering in both Newton and more especially Kepler of the Pythagorean
focus on audition).
In the twentieth-century ‘visual’ physics approaches its apogee via
Einstein’s relativity and quantum theory—followed more recently by the
return of the supporessed, in Superstring theory.  The auditory, the
harmonic dimension,  that had haunted physics throughout its history—like
an absent guest at the banquet of knowledge—finally makes its appearance.
A "sound" theory.