The question I ask is:

Is a being’s definition of the scale system it uses to define the universe it observes and within which it is contained the ultimate limit of its experience of its universe? Therefore, the problem is: how to expand its current ‘scale system’ and therefore expand its experience of the universe. Again, all within the realm of mathematics, physics and psychology. No spirituality and religion.

What if the idea of ‘scale’ does not operate the way we imagine it?

By ‘scale’ I mean any ideological relationships we develop when we think of the terms ‘small’ and ‘large’ and use them to define the nature of the universe that contains us. They could be mathematical definitions, linguistic definitions, visual definitions, etc.

For example: smaller to larger or atoms to mountains, or, larger to smaller or mountains to atoms, etc.

What if you can go down to infinitely small, or, up, to infinitely large, without ever having to stop because there is nothing to limit you but we are unable to determine that there is nothing to limit us because we are ,limited by the nature of our senses?

What if there are no permanent or no fixed dimensional limits? What I mean is: what if there are no permanent physical borders that can be expressed in a permanent or ‘true’ formula.

It has occurred to me that all mathematical formulas must be dictated by the observer’s definition of the size of the borders of the universe it is observing at any given point in time, that is at any given point in history.
However, the problem is: if we are unaware of the location of the borders that define the universe within which we are contained how can we know how big or small we really are? This question troubles me? How do we know ‘how big’ we really are? How can we know? Can we know? Do we know? I think not.

What if one day, we discover super planets or super stars. Planets and stars that that had been created under different conditions, in different areas of the universe, etc., and that might be millions of times larger than anything we have seen?

Or what if we reach the edge of the known space and begin to observe a region of space that might be so vast and so empty or so dense and therefore so densely populate d with anything that we might be unable to sense anything beyond it for centuries to come because of its immeasurable vastness or because of its immeasurable density? What if we are unable to make sense of it precisely because of its scale?

I think that asking such questions is extremely important precisely because we have not reached such regions of space!

We are operating within a limited temporal soup? We are yet to encounter regions that might suggest significantly different dimensions of the space time continuum.

More importantly, why must we, or, or can we, or, most importantly, should we think of the rest of the universe as being made up of exactly the same kind of matter as our region of space. Furthermore, this is not to be confused with definitions of matter? Regardless of the nature of the matter, we need to reimagine the idea of ‘scale’.

I think when, scientifically speaking, we look in either direction (from our point of view, from smaller to larger or from larger to smaller) there don’t seem to be any indication of any natural obstacles created by the natural world that would limit to how small or how large the universe can go. The only obstacles that exist are imposed by our senses and the equipment we use to observer the natural world.

Again, this is troubling. There is nothing in nature to suggest any NATURAL frame of reference. I suppose all we can do is use our eyes and ears to design equipment that enables us to see what we cannot see with our eyes and hear what we cannot hear with our ears and use it to explore the world. However, that is my concern. It’s a careless way of thinking and doing things that can take us only so far. Indeed, it’s unclear how far?

What are we really seeing?

Why should there be or how can there be anything (within the natural world) to limit how small or how big we can go?

For all we know the universe could be thriving with life which we are unable to perceive because of the nature of our senses. Even if we could design and build instruments that could detect new forms of radiation, or new states of the matter, or new gases, or new shapes, or new dimensions, or new patterns or what I call anti patterns (clusters of information so massive that they seem to be random but are not because they contain patterns that are hard to detect), we could not begin to experience them for what they are, for all we can do is interpret them in terms of what we know. We could be observing patterns of things so massive or so small that we could not begin to imagine their full size.

Now to make the above problem clear(er), I will attempt to formulate it:

Let’s being with a contained set that consists four simple elements.

The elements will be called Q, A, Z and T. Q after the omnipotent and omnipresent being from the Star Trek series. Yes, because I am a geek and because the being’s properties will help us relate to the mathematical Q. Q is a being that can transport itself to any point in time, anywhere in the universe, in any dimension, and it can assume and shape or form, etc., etc. Unfortunately our element is a stationary observer contained within his little backyard. Our Q represents us, humans, and is a stationary element within our equation. It is neither omnipotent nor omnipresent.

The A and the Z are used because they are the first and the last letters of the English alphabet. I am writing in English therefore it feels natural to use them. The letters A and Z represent the edges of the observable universe. The A represents the smallest observable phenomena (particles, etc.). The Z represents the largest observable phenomena (galaxies or the space between the largest known galaxies or whatever the largest detectable chunk of matter you wish to use a reference, or Dark Matter, etc.)

The letter U represents the universe or the physical space that contains the above mentioned elements (A, Z and Q) and stretches out into the unknown. The unknown, which I think is infinite.

As soon as we begin to talk about the A and X, as observed by the Q from its fixed position, we begin to encounter problems.

As soon as we think of the A and Z as the border’s of the Q’s experience of the universe we begin to think or we should begin to think of them as Q’s temporary borders. For, we have to ask what if our Q invents a better microscope?

The A would have to shift its position. It is easy to express what I call the scale system problem in terms of the constants (A and Z). However, in the real world, any new discoveries that change our perception of the universe demand that we change many different formulas in all areas of all sciences, design principles, theories governing policies of a large number of institutions, etc., etc.

Therefore, it becomes obvious that the A and Z are fixed only because they are awaiting some future commands from Q and not because it is in their nature to remain unchanged. They indicate our current scale but are not a set of unchangeable points. I suppose they could be described as some kind of vector.

Therefore we could say:

The Q element’s perception of reality is not fixed, it is defined by the elements A and Z, therefore it continues to expand in either direction along the U space time continuum.

A|← Q →|Z

The U line represents our ‘infinite’ universe
*Infinite to the extent to which it remains unobserved

Could we say that we would like to think that what matters in the present moment is what will matter in the future but that what matters in the future is never what matters in the present moment? What matters in the future is never what matters in the present moment because one of the ways in which future moments distinguish themselves from the present moment is precisely through the way in which they differ from the present moment. The key factor that brings about global changes and begins new eras and alters our perception of our place in the universe is change in our definition of the scale system.

The question is how can you know if you have reached the absolute limit? The answer is you cannot know it, because, I think, there is no absolute limit that can be reached.

It’s like a circle.

It’s a question of where in the universe you start. Are you an atom or are you a galaxy? And who is to say that galaxies aren’t atoms on some weird cosmic scale.

Thus the A and Z will keep moving further and further apart from each other, ad infinitum.

This creates philosophical and psychological problems we are unable to solve.
For example:

We are still unable to accept the forever changing property of our shared reality. We still exist in order to preserve the structures, which, even at the time of their creation, we had known would not have been able to withstand the test of time.

In order for all human beings to begin to live happy and meaningful lives, every single thing about the way we imagine, design and create and maintain the world needs to change.


It is quite hard to believe that even though we have had individuals like Newton, Freud, Fromm, Einstein and many others, we still haven’t learned a thing about the need to change the way we run the world.

As long as Q’s theory and practice suppress the vectors’ natural tendency to move, Q will stay confined within its ideological construct thus failing to realize it is a temporary construct.

That’s exactly what’s happening right now.

The important question is

I am too tried to continue. I need a ten hour nap. LOL.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s