Furthermore, our maths as it stands today represent a perception, not reality.

No, mathematics is an abstraction. It's not a matter of perception, but operating within strict paradigm and expanding upon it. If particular abstraction can be applied, it does not mean that reality is mathematical, but possesses an aspect that acts within certain set of rules described by mathematics. I do make this distinction.

Zero, for instance is the only representation of an absolute in maths, since all numbers are measures of the absolute, yet nothing cannot be absolute, it must be relative to something, and a measure of nothing is still nothing, so zero can't be nothing.

No, that's an interpretation of an abstract notion. One that can exist without introducing comparison other than "equals". Although I can agree that zero does not have to mean "nothing", that's just one of possible interpretations. One that is valid only when you count things.

Allowance by itself does not dis-allow other absolutes or absolute absolutes but, it does allow for their dis-allowance.

That sounds like an element of the paradigm that I was talking about, valid only upon accepting that allowance itself exists, is necessary and conforms to the other doodad properties that you were talking about.

Nothing is possible without allowance. Saying for instance"swearing is not allowed" is not necessarily dis-allowing swearing. Dis-allowing swearing is actually preventing it from swearing from occurring. If swearing occurs then you have allowed it.

and

It's not just my universe It's the logical universe, as opposed to the rational one, and unlike rationale, being independent of rules, context and purpose logic requires no specification of rules, context or purpose.

If allowance of action is p and ¬p does not mean its disallowance, you are not operating under the binary logic that you postulated few post above. Logic itself is just a set of rules, an abstraction.

Sorry bro, no offence intended but the only shooting I can see is you shooting yourself in the foot.

I was not the one to spend years thinking up a theory that can't be clearly formulated in a formal manner. Furthermore, I don't see how you have reached a conclusion that there is some principle of allowance. In fact, you talk about it like its an axiom from which other things in our reality should follow, but don't provide any reasoning above "because it happens, it must have been allowed". That's almost a textbook example of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In theories like yours, you have to either assume a set of laws and explain processes in reality by using said laws in a manner that is not self-referential, or take phenomena in reality and show how they can happen and what set of laws must be behind it. You have done neither and your only rebuttal to my counterexamples was boiling down to "because it's allowed".

This is not how logic or theory formulation works. Read Elements. Read Mathematics of Meta-mathematics by Helena Rasiowa. Read up about logical fallacies and calculus of predicates. Read almost anything by Ludwig Wittgenstein or Georg Henrik von Wright. That's how you follow with reasoning in maths, science or philosophy. Not by making an assumption about something being a necessary property for stuff you want to explain to even happen in the first place and doing what you have accused me of: applying a purely logical paradigm separated from reality, to answer questions about reality. So what, that's OK but applying mathematical reasoning to rebuke it is not? Get your purview straight.

Oh, and I'm not your bro.