Words are integer and number is number.

In order to pursue another line of reasoning to show the inherent enigma of the universe and that we can never really know anything, and that a faith that is based on bad logic never amounts to anything, we will entertain the subject of words and numbers.

It is never really possible to define anything. Defining a red apple would seem easy. An apple is the fruit of an apple tree. But then we have to define “tree” and “fruit.”  A tree is a structure of xylem and phloem and engages in photosynthesis. In an effort to define xylem and phloem one must define the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Then one must define, eventually, the elements carbon and nitrogen. Then one must define the formation of elements in stars. Then one must define the formations of the stars and ultimately the universe itself. One would have to do the same thing for “red” and, again, one would ultimately end up having to explain the universe. In fact one could take any subject and, following this same train of logic, end up having to explain the universe. Thus we go from a point (a subject) to infinity (the universe) with any complete line of logic.  Yet this would suggest that the infinite is contained within the finite.  As has been previously noted this is due to the fact that the universe is infinitely small and, simultaneously, infinitely big.

It has been said by others that existence consists of something between nothing and everything.  This relationship is shown very well in the mathematical world. I am not a mathematician or physicist. I wish I were, but then I probably would not be able to hold a job (unless, of course,  I were a mathematician or a physicist). In all our equations of physics things work pretty well in the “in- between realm” but start to break down when things approach infinite smallness or infinite bigness—which everything does. This is why the two great pillars of physics—relativity and quantum mechanics—do not mesh very well (at all). Relativity works on the really big stuff and quantum mechanics works on the really small stuff. Just as the train of logic leads to infinity (the universe) it also leads to nothing (before the beginning of the universe).

I will be the first to admit that it is really annoying to be slammed around in the Ventricle of God, going from the infinitely small to the infinitely big, but that is just the way it is. You take some nice, simple shape like a square consisting of nice integer numbers like 2 X 2, and right in the middle of the darn thing is a diagonal line that has some sloppy number that has no end to it (decimal places).  NOT so nice. Just when we think we’ve got everything figured out we pull on a string that is a little bit too long and everything comes apart again. Why does the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter have to be some dogawful thing like 3.1469…yadda and not just a neat, simple 3?

It was Aristotle who started the paradigm of a finite universe.  His model, further elaborated by the likes of Ptolemy and Dante, posited a universe consisting of nine inset spheres, obviously moving.  The ultimate handiwork and proof of God was reflected in the nine moving spheres.  Earth was the sphere at the center.  The force imparting motion moved through the ninth sphere, the primum noble—in a word, God.  This scheme was the entire basis of ecclesiastical and scientific dogma for thousands of years! Both the church and science (western  science) rejected the idea of infinity and even the number  “0” for hundreds of years. The “0” came from India as a derivation of Hinduism via the “great Cosmic Void.” Even the Bible said “and the Earth was without form and void,” yet voidness was considered to be an evil concept. The idea of nothingness was too terrifying. Imagine, you can multiply 0 times anything —even infinity—and there is still 0. Heresy! At the same time you can divide any number by 0 and there is inifinity. This did not jibe with anybody’s religion (at least in the West). The fact is this belief stood the West hundreds of years behind the the East. They had it figured out. Again, this was not just a religious thing; even science could not accept it, and this intransigence set us back hundreds of years (that is not even counting the Dark Ages).

The above is yet another example of the hazards presenting when a religion or science shuts itself up in a dogma.  It is a trying journey but we must press on with our mental constructs like tube worms in a rotten boat. Do fleas believe in dog, do fish believe in sea?  While thinking, we know our thoughts are limited.  Nevertheless we follow our nature, being always willing to lay down our paradigms. Kill the gods, and they just keep coming back. ###