There are molecular machines to construct the most miniature of compositions. ![]() Look at it this way:There are lasers to reorient atoms. How might this be accomplished? Imagine for a moment that the energy levels of those particle smashers that physicists use, the ones you hear about on the news all the time, was reduced to merely reorient the atoms and molecules of matter, instead of breaking them to see what’s inside, and you can *imagine* how two atoms might be reconfigured in multiple dimensions to join with each other repeatably in a fixed shape. That’s why I can come to terms with creationism the idea that some supremely omniscient and omnipotent person could create a living being, nay, a living CITY, out of mere molecular waste, is to me a certainty, and not an impossibility. I am driven by power and knowledge, and university attendance taught me to come to terms with the idea that there would always be a person or organization of people that could do whatever I was thinking better than I myself could do it, and, in fact, had probably already done it a long time ago. This creative process is the root of the argument of whether creationism and evolution should be taught side-by-side in schools attended by blank-slate children. We can see quite often in life how the real manifests imaginary things in its being, and incorporates imaginary things into the physical world as new real objects, through the creative process. Thus, an idea for an action figure is more imaginary than a software representation of one on a computer, and a software design is more imaginary than a 3D-printed model of the figure. However, that set precludes the inclusion of imaginary things that have been actualized. Something that’s imaginary is thought to occupy the mental world, and to be a subset of that realm exclusively. Quite the contrary! To answer this question, we must look at the inherent capability of something imaginary to be manifested in real life. Thus, a bee is realer than a beehive, and a beehive is realer than a bee colony’s plans for building one.ĭoes that mean that something imaginary is impossible to behold in reality? Something that’s real is thought to occupy the physical world, and to have grown out of it from natural processes. To answer the question, we must look at the inherent differences in what is believed to be “Real” and what is believed to be “Imaginary”. What bearing does this have on what can be called *real*? ![]() If you just did a double take, try reading this previous Renaissance Musings article for a little background: The subject of molecular reconstruction is a hot topic these days!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |