|
andru235
|
is the inevitable conclusion if all factors are considered;
to conclude otherwise indicates a failure to consider the episcope;
any theories to the contrary are included in 'everything', but only infinity can fully encompass everything, including the situation whereby, for whatever reason, infinity cannot fully encompass everything;
a sure indicator of everything can be found anywhere;
as to why it threatens those who seek, i know not;
few concepts have been so besieged and distorted as 'everything', from religion and science alike;
it would seem that parties claiming to have a definitive grasp on what 'everything' consists of often depend on others adopting the same view for (insert validation/power/whatever here);
whereas those who accept everything to be truly infinte have no need for such persuasions, and our offerances of enlightenment are meant only for your transcendence: your rejection of the infinities makes little difference to me one way or the other, i will go on infinitely and so will you;
after 8000 years of religious figureheads dominating the discussion of what infinity is and what it isn't (usually choosing the word 'god' or whatever to represent everything, which one supposes is not inherently inaccurate), we now have entered an age where science does the same thing, and it appears to be having similar results, in a very different guise;
when atomics were discovered, many were certain that this was it, atomics was the ultimate base of existence;
then it was the quark and sub-atomics, they were certain this was the base of existence;
recently it has been conjectured that 'string theory' is the ultimate explanation (yet what is a string but a chain of [whatever]);
science actively searches for a fundamental 'theory of everything'; it is like watching someone search for the room they are currently in, and with an air of such desperation; the only theory of everything is 'everything', meriting all theories;
and while science may find many accuracies about this particular realm (or phase or sector) of everything, such a discovery insures elsewhere it is inaccurate, just as an inaccuracy here signals an accuracy in that 'parallel universe' that annoys those who fancy themselves to be seeing the 'one true reality';
it would seem that, in this sector of everything, to know one thing is to forget another; where there is a gain in physical knowledge, there is a loss in spiritual knowledge;
indeed we see the science-minded and the nihilists often writing off the possibility of all things spiritual, usually because there is a lack of physical evidence;
this is laughable! for the very concept of spiritualality is that it isn't physical;
would it not be equally absurd to deny a physical truth because one could find no spiritual proof?;
i could go on and on, indefinetely; have i not already?
and as it would be, i have doubtfully enlightened anyone here, for those who know already know, and these past centuries have shown that there is no persuasion via argument (at least, not on such matters as this);
persuasion can ultimately come only from personal experience, in this sector, anyway;
deny, rebuke, refute; infinity awaits; you cannot stop it if you don't believe it, and if you do believe it, you see there is no point in stopping it anyway,
so get out there, and exist!
everything:
it's what's for ever.
|
050411
|
