Mathematics is not about numbers, nor, as you have expressed them, as mere concepts. They are, in fact, expressions of our thoughts. For to describe a concept requires a huge cultural background on which the "concept" emerges. Every mathematical statement stands on the shoulders of many ancestors.

As you would no doubt agree, creation is an infinite thought—and as such, is not made up of such concepts, static and absolute, but of "relationships". For an infinite thought would be a thought that never ceases!

The beauty of numbers, which we often forget, is that they themselves speak of a relation, a ratio, thus describing a measurement in relation to some other size. The number one (1) only has relevance in a mathematical context—ontically it describes a situation that is relative: one apple, ten miles, etc. Thus when I use the number one (1), it is a relation that I am expressing, a dynamic, numbers being a mere snapshot of a pixelated reality.

Thus we are always playing catchup with G!d. He Thinks, we measure... and after much struggle, perhaps catch a glimpse of what He is Thinking.

Numbers, and their adjutants express what I refer to as the "static" view of reality, whereas mathematics has grown to be a language able to capture the dynamics between the pixels—in other words, a line, a "picture" or facsimile of reality—which is "closer" to G!d's true thoughts that a mere pixelated format.

I was impressed by your presentation. I have never seen the Mandlebrot set with such eyes before. Thank you. I am forever grateful to you for this vision of the Divine.

There is a certain stance that you have taken with which I have difficulty. I accept your explanations linking G!d/Divine/HaShem, Blessed Be His Name, to the expuisite beauty of the Mandlebrot set. However, I am not a Christian, nor am I secular—I am Jewish, and the continuous reference to Jesus is uncomfortable to me, only as it represented as the only, absolute, path of redemption.