mushmaster said:

Go read a chaos theory book, man.

any suggestions? 

---

Hhm.... there was this really great one that my friend had that I always used to read at his house.. I will need to do some searching for it, see if I can find it...

Well, there were far too many results to go through, so I will have to wait until I can talk to him again before finding out which one it is that I read...

But I have more time on my hands now and can make more than one sentence replies...

I have been trying to explain this, but I am not coming up with anything. All I can say is size is relative. The room we are in now, to an ant, is more like a few miles are to us. The time it would take an ant to walk from one side of the room is going to be a lot longer than it will take us to do.

And an ant is a structure that is still visible to us. Imagine the view of our room from the perspective of a bacteria floating in the air.

Anyways, I am at a loss of words. But I do know that when trying to map out a coastline, it gets more and more defined as one zooms in. Worlds within worlds. To think that the Universe only consists of the objects that we see from our perspective is nonsense.

Tell me, where is the edge of the Universe? What? We still haven't found it? And, tell me, what is the smallest particle that we have found that is used to compose everything else? What? We keep finding smaller and smaller particles every day?

Ahem. Self-similarity! cough cough. So, is our Sun and say... the star Alpha Centauri stars, or are they just another electron in an atom that helps compose the panties on an alien that does research on their level, looking through a telescope, trying to find the end of the Universe?
Peace.

recalcitrant said:

i noticed how similar the pictures of space and atoms are. is it safe to assume that if there are little creatures living at that size, they would see huge spaces between the atoms. and it would be virtually impossible for them to persieve the body which all those atoms made up........ if our stars are the atoms of an ascendent "reality" then i think i see the universe in a grain of sand. 

---

Exactly. To think that our perspective and scale that we view the Universe with is the only view of the Universe, that we are only the sub-atomic level of another structure, and that we are the summation of an infinite amount of structures just doesn't make sense to me.

I feel that the Universe makes just a little bit more sense this way, rather than looking for the end of the Universe and having to deal with questions like "what was there before the Universe was here", "where is the edge of the Universe", and "what is beyond that edge"?
Peace.

mushmaster said:

now... that is no reason for believing that the universe is infinite and part of something even bigger. it may very well be finite. you just don't know.

---

Either way, if it infinite or finite... it just can't be comprehended by our mind. Both solutions only offer questions that thinking about them makes your brain dizzy...

Quote:

the brick wall of a house is made of bricks, not a million houses or a million little brick walls.

---

Quote:

is there any scientific reason whatsoever to believe that that is the nature of things? 

---

Well, maybe all the stuff going on in quantam physics, chaos theory... I'm not a scientist, I'm a bass guitarist who likes to think about stuff.
Peace.