<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tuffy</i>
<br />well, tom, what do you think about this stuff? i mean the question about the smallest particle, if any, and the nature of stuff.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My views were expressed in some detail in my book, <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>, the first five chapters of which describe the Meta Model cosmology (MM). That is the subject of several of these discussion topics.
MM is the only assumption-free cosmology and the only deductive cosmology. In it, nature has five dimensions: three of space plus time and scale (e.g., mass). All are infinite in both directions. The extended Zeno's paradox for scale "proves" (by eliminating the alternative as unreasonable) that all of substance is infinitely divisible. On that, I gather that you and I are in agreement. Where I disagree with you is your agnostic position about the knowability of such things. Logic, used properly, considerably narrows the field of possibilities.
If I had one comment about the opposing views expressed by others in this particular thread (and in the one that speaks of reality being "nothingness"), it would be "please define your terms". For example, define "nothing" and "existing". Clear thought starts with clear definitions of words and clear descriptions of concepts. Anything less than that easily leads to "fuzzy-think" in which "anything is possible". I understand why mathematicians and philosophers enlarge the scope of their interest beyond what is physically possible. But those reasons do not apply to the rest of us in discussions such as this one. -|Tom|-
