That myth is about to be expelled...
Is there anything smaller than them? Well, we could discuss atoms. And we could discuss quarks and subatomic particles, etc. We don't see these things directly, but we can test their existence. And we even have to accept due to our own observations and deductions that at a microscopic level these things could be based upon even smaller things, and that they seem to (at that level) hold to their own kind of physics.
Somehow, somewhere, buried in it all has to be some universal equation to describe how everything works, except that we can't seem to get all the data. Based on experiments and with crude measuring (compared to the subatmoic levels) we can develop equations which closely approximate the behavior exhibited in nature as we casually observe it.
In the meanwhile, we see oddities in nature that can't be explained by our equations.
The time it takes for light to travel to us at our observation point interferes with our perception of the here-and-now. Objects we "see" are mere images of different times (based on distance) of distant object. As with stars, their real position is no where near the place we think we see them; we're looking at light emitted from them long ago that's just now reaching us.
It is just as reasonable to assume that that which we can't see on the extreme exists as well, and that it too could be just a piece of a larger component. Planets of star systems of galaxies of super clusters of.... It's quite possible that the first light of things hasn't even begun to reach us yet. Yet, somehow we believe they're out there.
We may assume there is a 10th planet out there based on anomalies in the orbits of the other nine... who knows? All in all, size in itself has told it is is logical to believe in something we can't see... based on size.
Thus, it is mathematically reasonable to assert that the existence of another three dimensional universe that parallel to our own is unaccessible by us. And, furthermore, we must admit along the same lines that a fourth dimensional creature would easily be able to observe and interact with our universe without our ability to get to his dimension. This extrapolation could continue on up to an infinite number of dimensions.
The dimension theories presented here come from a mathbook about dimensions
called
"Flatland
" by
It is reasonable to deduce that time in itself can be applied and treated like a space-like dimension for the purpose of modeling points in a time-space continuum, but it does not necessarily hold true that time is the final dimension, rather a different kind of vector altogether. No matter what method, we can insist that an object in any space also exists in that space at a particular moment in time.
Thus, if an object were transported forward in time, or backwards, it would no longer be present at the spacial co-ordinate for the current moment. Eventually it would exist when we caught up to it, and from its own perspective, who knows... but that is not important for this discussion. Time is measured based on the position and movement of objects within our dimension. And the degree of measurement is subject to the granularity that we can observe and define in relationship to one another (such as the Earth's double motion: a rotation and high speed orbit, which seem unnoticeable or certainly don't distract us that much).
It is reasonable and logical to assume the possibility that things can exist in different places (out of view or accessability), of sizes, dimensions, and within time that could exist without being viewed. The twenty dollar bill I just burned, still exists in its valued state back in time. And my unborn child will exist sometime in the future.
It is also possible to reason that we haven't found all the vectors (perhaps we don't have access to them). It is also reasonable to assume that time itself could be viewed in entirety by another dimension of time, thus without interacting, being affected, or being measured by the original vector.
It is possible that there may be different kinds of vectors we don't know about. So far we know vectors can go forwards and backwards, and some like time seem to only go forwards. Is it possible to assume that some 'vectors' are actually planes (or even high dimensions)? Could there be a vector of no direction, like the 0th, which simply exists? Mathematically, yes. A time vector of 0th dimension would never begin, never end, and always be.
Through our exploration and search for God, we will need to see, does God fit any of these descriptions? We've already given sight to assume it is reasonable to such things could exist. Do they though? We may not know, because we can't measure them due to our limitations. However, references to such things should not be immediately dismissed.
At this point, one can accept the possibility of things that can not be seen or scientifically measured having a probability of existence. Unfortunately, since specific probability is based solely on specific measurements, one can only conclude that there is a non-zero chance of such things possibly existing, and that should other pieces of evidence appear that support this theory, the level of 'faith' should be adjusted appropriately: a tangible acceptance of something currently intangible.
Just because something can't be seen or measured, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could be bigger, smaller, distant, obstructed, evasive, existing in another moment in time, in another dimension, or in a parallel dimension. Unless we can conclusively check all places (and we physically can't), the best we can do is conclude:
| Previous: Is All Faith Blind | Next: The Order of the Universe | (Believe) | Religion Page | KJV Bible |