Perspective & Paradigm

Only in our minds is the universe large.

Life, The Universe and Everything

YOU WROTE
have you ever thought about what would happen if we
discovered the universe was finite?
~*~

If the universe were finite time would be finite, i.e., it would have a beginning & an end.
A finite universe begs creation.

YOU WROTE
I think it would be impossible, for then what would
the universe be in? and what is not in this universe?
isn't it the spacious container for literally
everything?
~*~

If the universe were finite, it would not define all that exists.
If the universe does not define all that exists, it is consequential and, therefore, begs creation.
If the universe were infinite, it would define all that exists.
If the universe defines all that exists, it is inconsequential and, therefore, does not beg creation.
If the universe was not created and yet exists, the universe is.

YOU WROTE
speaking of perspective and paradigms, what about
looking the other way to the subatomic.
observing the process will change it.
~*~

The small and the large are mutually dependent and, therefore, consequential.
Consequential observation does not happen only in the small. Observe the present circumstances of your life.

YOU WROTE
If you are looking for something, surely you will find it, if you
truly desire it. But are we looking for the smallest
particles, or just smaller particles? We could go on
forever saying what is that made of? okay then what
is that made of? now what is that made of?
What happens when we don't have anything thin enough
to cut and divide the smaller particle we wish to
dissect? We speculate. And anyone can prove a
theory, but at that level who can disprove it? We
find what we are looking for.
~*~

Aristotle was a proponent of the continuous nature of matter. His famous example was that of attempting to arrive at a destination by approaching it in a series of steps, each of which reduces by half the remaining distance. However small the remaining distance between the starting point and the destination there would still remain half that distance and so, the number of steps in the series would be infinite. Likewise, matter split in half repeatedly would, however small the remaining amount of matter, still be capable of being reduced by half, infinitely.

Democritus, whose generation preceded and partially overlapped Aristotle’s, was a proponent of the discrete nature of matter. In this concept there is a downward limit beyond which matter could not further be reduced. This limit was referred to as the ‘indivisible’. The Greek word for this is ’atomos’, from which we get our modern term of atom.

The jury is still out as to which of the two men’s (if either) view of the nature of matter is correct.

We do speculate. If done properly, however, only people of certain abilities can prove a theory. What happens most often, and is misconstrued for ‘proof’ but is actually rhetorical prestidigitation, is that positions and opinions are supported by powerfully convincing information taken out of context and presented to the recipient as contextual or in a manner endearing to the recipient, such as an appeal to emotion or ego.

YOU WROTE
It seems though that all matter is merely energy
condensed to a slow vibration.
~*~

That matter and energy are different forms of the same thing (E=mc2) is accepted as a given these days. That matter is merely energy
condensed to a slow vibration is not. It is a theory. One of many.

YOU WROTE
Why is this not good enough?
~*~

The following is not a flippant question, Paul...Why do you want to know?

YOU WROTE
Do we really need to figure out a better way
to destroy, or dissect and take apart our world around
us and use it against ourselves?
~*~

This is really the age old question of man’s basic nature; evil or not, good or not.

I am looking forward to really visiting with you this May and June. (June because you are having a 10-year class reunion.)

I Love You!


Dad