Interesting links there about zeta functions and primes.
I think it is connected to many things, including:
Dr. Dick's idea of "F = 0"; and Tarvo's "no common ground" computer programme idea.
Consider: a game of Chess.
Suppose: you start with considering "any piece" and "any squares"; and what if you knew nothing about Chess except that pieces move over squares on a board?
Suppose you were to be told about a game of Chess move by move with only limited information given you.
Say White moves first and moves a pawn to its Kings's third. What if you were to write down a so-far limited definition of "white pawn" as "a piece that can make the first move and that can move to k3"?
If you carried on like this; you would get more and more detailed in your definitions of the pieces. At the end of the game you would have inter-related definitions of all the pieces. But some pawns might go through the whole game defined as "didn't move".
Of course you could figure out the real rules of Chess from such a list of strangely constructed rules.
A prime number is such that it has no common factors other than itself.
Looking at our strange Chess rules that were built up a little by little; and comparing them with the actual Chess rules: the actual definition of a Chess piece automatically includes all possible allowed common factors in Chess games for that piece.
With our limited view of Chess rules built up move by move: we figure out the actual rules fairly quickly as we notice common factors.
If you continued half-way through the game to insist on "tunnel-vision?" perspective of the rules (like saying "well that pawn has not moved yet so how do we know it can ever move?") then?
Dr. Dick's system: by making "F=0" what he seems to do is make a group of interacting objects defined such that any description of one or of any group of them must be complimentary to any other such description. You start with "strings" like in the Chess idea: "White king is a piece that can do such-and-such SO FAR" but end out with common factors appearing in your definition of "white King" (such as "move one square at a time in any direction").
(These common factors seem like what physicists call "branes". String theory reduces it seems to "number-lines"; brane theory to "factor sheets or "times tables").
Tarvo's computer programe is about going only on to new ground; it is about avoiding common factors.
Dr. Dick's system of "assignment of definitions" seems similar; he makes each item the "missing piece" in the definitions of all the other items combined?
The Zeta function, complex numbers, and the zeroes on the critical line (referring to website):
Complex numbers are 2-D; primes are about "every way factorisation can happen; but NOT happen this time". "Factorisation" involves a generalised "2 by 2" format; "powers" involve a specified 2 x 2 format; roots involve general yet specific 2 x 2 format?
Taking "electro-" as "generalise"; "magnetic" as "specify"; and "electro-magnetic" as "specific generalisation" so like mirror on "re-normalisation" (as "re-normalisation involves comparing with some other problem (so generalising relatively specifically say):
"factorisation" as "electric math"; "taking powers of" as "magnetic math"; "taking roots of" as "photon math".
Of course you can indeed get "factorisation currents" (repeat occurence of say "3 x 4" in factorising many large numbers say?); "taking powers" does involve "North and South poles" namely the number "n" and the power "p" say.
You never see a math-magnetic mono-pole in powers (always have a number to power of something obviously).
"Taking roots" as photon math: you always get a constant speed c: speed is distance per time.
Time is "referent self reference" (self-referring origin of clock hand, as the far-end of the hand passes a reference distance for the thing you are timing; self-referring pendulum or atomic vibration allegedly retraces same path in calibrating a distance of vibration).
Speed is: distance per self-ref. ref. distance:
consider "light" is "comparison" or "speed" or "relativity" or "communicating". Suggest that by definition taking a square root gives two items that allegedly equally contribute to describing an area.
That formula in the web-site that could describe U238 looks like "re-normalisation".
What is the ultimate hermittian operator? A hermit? In Chess the ultimate hermittian operator might be the actual game you play.
Fundamental equation for physics? "Does 1 + 1 really = 2?" It is a non-equation say; obviously to even have this one and that one they must be not equal; how you group them is how YOU group them? Chris Langan's conspansive duality approach to physics implicit here.
Numbers and physics entwined? Example: they say 96% of universe is dark matter/ dark energy.
The number 4: in Chess there are a lot of moves and sequences of moves you COULD have played but didn't as the game proceeds. "Dark matter" may be like "the unit-meets-group" arrangements in those virtual games; "dark energy" may be like the "alternatives" involved in those "ghost games".
Generalising "four-ness": why 4% only real matter/ energy?
One choice: two-ness. Conserve one choice say; make another choice: two-ness AGAIN (so times two) gives SPACE (room to move) and TIME (referent self-reference)(three-ness)(superstring).
Conserve AGAIN say; get "curve" in the "two-ness times two" so "where is the four in this four?" so "I don't know where" gives "8 gluons"; "I do know where" gives "force of old time" or "space-time AGAIN" or "space-time mass" or gravity.
Seems that the number "4" zaps all over the equations of physics to re-appear in cosmology as "singular definition of real matter/ real energy".
Just very rough thoughts tossed around here; still to write up stuff on Dr. Dick's thought experiment etc.