Quantum Entanglement via Hexa-god

My goal is to simplify that which is more complex.  A good teacher can do this, even tho some of  critical details will be missing for  more wholistic comprehension  of the greater whole set. Susskind does this in his vid in Part Two below.

Part One

..." If there are six equilateral triangles around a vertex we cannot define a three-dimensional structural system, only a "plane." "...Bucky Fuller

In the above graphic we se increasing complexity as we go from tetra{4]hedron with 6 lines, to planar hexagon with 12 lines. 

At When does exponential complexity begin? At four. O O O O

At three points { * * * } we have three lines-of-relationship, and at four points we jump from 3,  to  6 lines-of-relationship, and that is the beginning of exponential growth.

LINK 3^2, minus 3, divided by 2 = 3. I --if not also Fuller-- identify 3 with structure, or structural stability /\  Any carpenter knows a square { 4 } house has to be triangulated for it to become a stable structure.

Part Two: Growth of Quantum Complexity

In Leonard Susskinds { LIGO fame "Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory" } Quantum Gravity vid  {LINK Quantum Origins of Gravity }  he states, that, --go to 43:30 > 43:38--   the reason Linus cannot pass { teleportation } --via quantum entanglement bridge{ EPR }--- from one black hole to the other, is because of the exponential growth of complexity, according to Maldecna-Susskinds special case exploration of string theory called AdS-CFT.

LINK.... "The AdS-CFT correspondence......This is traditionally interpreted as a concrete realization of a vague “holographic principle” according to which quantum gravity in bulk spacetimes is controlled, in one way or other, by “boundary field theories” on effective spacetime boundaries, such as event horizons. "

are 1, 2p, 3p, 6, p7, 9, 14, 18, 21, 27, 42, 54, 63, 126, 189, and 378. If we put aside the the 1 and 378 --cause there sort of redundant{?}-- we have 14 divisors remaining. Below have included prime numbers to 383 as curiosity reference to these divisors below and added any adjacent prime to each number.

1.2p.3p...6...p7.... 9, 14...18{19p}..21..27....{41p}42....{53p}54....63..126{127p}....189....378{379p}

........................................18{19p}................{41p}42....{53p}54..........126{127p}..............378{379p}

Here above ive put the 5  adjacent primes in brackets {  } that are not inherently part of the divisors.

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383.

In the Synergetics graphic as I'm alluding to and embedded hyper-space being the adjacent close bonding of the two radii from each hexagon. The VE does this in other ways also, not shown in any of the above.

Part Five: In Synergetics, the VE has total of 25, conceptually spun,  primary great circles associated with its 12 vertexes, 14 openings,  24 edges/chords.

In all of the above, I'm only considering the hexagons, i.e. only considering four great hexagonal planes, or as conceptually spun great circle planes, not the other 21 of 25 great circles.

I could be wrong but I don't think most people on this site appreciate or are interested in this kinda stuff, let alone be able to respond to it in a way that would be intriguing or entertaining. But hey that's just my opinion. I think some kind of science /math site would get more response and input. I mean, a lot of people here cant figure out how many genders there are while at the same time saying gender is just a made up social construct, while at the same time demanding you acknowledge their gender.

Lets correct an error from that first draft.

...2p.3p........7p................18{19p}................{41p}42....{53p}54..........126{127p}..............

Is the addition of the adjacent primes  a valid play in this above? It is, if were trying to increase quantum complexity in ways the do not, only consider the exponential growth of lines-of-relationship, without the inclusion of those adjacent prime numbers.

The consideration of whether my above is a valid play, is that were dealing with divisors of 378 only. I dunno what to say, except I'm a naive explorer looking for cosmic answers to cosmic questions.

Another consideration is why focus so much on the prime numbers? 

Oh and I just found another error.   There is an adjacent prime to the divisor 14, i.e. {13p}14

...2p.3p........7p.......{13p}14.........18{19p}................{41p}42....{53p}54..........126{127p}..............

Now we have balance of inherent primes and adjacent primes 4 > < 4.  The only imbalance --tainted off-centered-ness, is that we have inherent and adjacent primes in our mix of consideration. We began with 16 divisors, dropped 2 poles, leaves 14 divisors for consideration. Removed all except inherent primes and adjacent primes.

Oh yeah, I forgot about this Nobel prize winning info. Directly related to hexa-brain and torus, if not hexa-god :--)

I think ebuc is just showing that there are some people on this forum that have an IQ over 130.