My very first stumble across the other side of Energy that does not openly showcase any of its finer qualities, that you may be aware of, did not expose me to any depth of familiarity with Light, much less, with how fast it travels.
A lot of that association began, to my knowledge, with a man, who by the rather loud telltale signs on his quite familiar appearance, might be thought to have spent very little time in light. He did give us fantastical mathematical formulations of entities that we could not even fit in our imagination without tears.I will refrain, from sympathy, to boggle our minds with his attempts to show relationships between time and space via formulas or how he came by E = Mc?. Among other things, he did say, though, - and this is what really interests me - that God does not throw dice, by which he must have been suggesting that if God did, then, it would have been nothing short of miraculous to generate the outcome that has become the Universe that we know.But then, again, the notion ‘God’ does spell the miraculous if only to the finite mental capacity that, we possessing, strain to assimilate all that is hurled at us by the subtle intricacies of Nature. For to arrive at that primal notion demands an explanation, which though seemingly deduced by bare faced Logic, cannot be grasped by it, unless, perhaps, there is a die involved in the equation after all – the little unknown factor, the principle of uncertainty by which the human is thoroughly befuddled and lured on to a never ending thirst to explore and to know.
And why should that be so strange when the utmost uncertainty in itself does exist, at least in paradoxical theory, that something might come to be out of nothing if all existence should point to one originating point and yet, no existential reality can be allowed to flout the seemingly irrevocable law that nothing can come from nothing except, of course, (as some would hold) if it were ‘God’ or, as I might suspect, if Einstein were allowed some time on the problem.And so this concept ‘God’ has come to represent the all encompassing point beyond understanding and the breaking point of Logic, at least, that of ordinary folks like us, so powerful that it has not a name except as a starting point to the sense humans might make out of their own existence. Thus, out of the incomprehensible seems to come our rationale and from the incoherent, our judgement.So maybe this smart guy got it wrong; maybe ‘God’ (mind the inverted commas) does throw dice and the result began in ‘God’ – confusing? Welcome to my world. As it happens, I suppose if there is this law through which the human mind can manage no breach and with which our reason cannot argue, then, ipso facto, by that law is our Universe made explicit. All reality within the reach of ‘our’ Universe should conform to this law or, by virtue of the same philosophy, should be classified un-real.
But ‘our’ reality cannot, totally, possibly conform to this law if we are to dig for the origin of all things. Therefore, does Bertrand Russell argue that if we would claim that ‘God’ or the Prime Mover came to be out of nothing, we could, logically, claim the same for our Universe. Except, though, it would be claimed in some quarters that the First Mover, being the external force, lies outside our dimension and, thus, outside our laws. Conveniently well put.
However, if it is outside our dimension and our laws, then supposedly, it should be outside our reality; so how can we confidently speak of that of which we have no evidence and with which we have no contact? Still troubling? One thing is certain though; it does seem much safer to concede that our defined laws fail to apply to ‘external’ reality, leaving the question open ended, than to discount an arguably unimpeachable law and go on to entertain the possibility (as we are bravely doing already) that our beginnings would have stemmed from purely probable factors.And that indeed does render our world totally contingent and, given that, furthermore, we have been judged by extensive research to be simply the ape that got lucky in the evolutionary process, there is found some base logic in the admission of the chance factor. However, the priceless [to me anyway] question is ‘did the ‘dice’ have the same number on five sides?
