A Little Insight into my Brain, and How it ‘Works’.

Strap yourselves in and brace for a bumpy ride 🙂

 I was thinking about a post of InWorship’s that he wrote had ‘no point’, which some took to read as being about ‘nothing’.

 I was able to put a different perspective on it (he actually said a heck of a lot when saying ‘nothing’ and there was more of a point, or several points, than he implied) and that got me to ‘thinking’ along these ‘lines’…

 What is the point to ‘nothing’?

 Nothing is a circle. 


 A circle is (mathematically) an infinite set of points all equidistant from a common point – the ‘centre’.

 Circles have neither beginning nor end.

A circle is a line that has both opposite ends meeting at one point.

Mathematically, there are actually an infinite number of points between any two points, no matter how close together they get; you can always fit another point between them. 

A line (set of points in one dimension) is free to extend to infinity in both directions.

A line can contain an infinite number of smaller ‘finite length’ lines. This is in just ONE ‘dimension’. ( an infinity of infinity’s)

A plane (the sheet of paper like type not the flying kind) can contain an infinite number of such infinite lines (in just 2 dimensions: an infinity of infinitys, squared).

There can be an infinite number of these planes and lines in what we understand as ‘3 dimensional’ space. (Infinity of infinity’s cubed)

 Now it starts getting ‘weird’…

There can be an infinite number of 3 dimensional spaces and planes and lines in 4 dimensional space-time! ( Einstein showed how the fourth dimension, ‘time’, can be interchanged with any of the 3 known dimensions!)

 Many mathematicians and physicists believe it does not ‘end’ there!

It is theoretically possible (probable even!) that there are an infinite number of 4 D space-times in 5 D space-time-…?

And so on…

Many think at least 10 dimensions and perhaps 26 dimensions are ‘necessary’ to fully ‘explain’ the Universe!!! but that those above 3D have all ‘curled up’ and so are essentially ‘invisible’.

 Most of us struggle with working/living in just three, let alone four, or more.

To give the non-mathematicians amongst us a glimpse of how this could be possible…

Picture a telephone wire hanging in the air between two poles.

To us the wire ‘appears’ to be one dimensional – a mere line. A whole bunch of tiny ‘dots’ touching each other in space along a single ‘axis’.


Now picture it from the point of view of an ant walking along it.

The ant is able to walk ‘left’ and right’ but can also go ‘around’ or do both at the same time and wander around and along the line. This is actually impossible for us to do with a simple ‘line’ but it gives you the general idea involved.

Now take that telephone line and make a coil with it – imagine all the ways the ant is free to wander about in 3 D space, while to us it just looks like a 2 D circle. Add more coils – one on top of the other – making something looking like a plain cylinder that to us has just two ‘sides’ an inside and an outside surface… to the ant it is so much more than that. The ant was once forced to move roughly in one of two directions with a slight ‘twist’ possible. Now it can ‘leap’ from one surface to another and miss out so much of the length of space it was confined to before. It can do what was previously ‘impossible’.

 What if our space is curved like the telephone coils and we are like ants?  Just what is actually ‘possible’ now?

The scientific reason we don’t get to ‘see’ these other dimensions in space in our ‘normal’ 3 D world is because these other extra dimensions have ‘curled’ up. Curled up so tiny in fact, we cannot detect them by physical means. They would be almost infinitely smaller than a single atom! That does not mean they don’t exist or have any purpose – or ‘point’, however.

Many explanations of Quantum Mechanics don’t ‘make sense’ unless these dimensions DO exist!

 You’ll just have to trust me on that – or look it up for yourselves! But don’t expect it to make a lot of sense if you are not all that good at maths or physics!

What was the point?

Really just to show the kinds of things i can think about while in the shower, but also to offer a more ‘scientific’ view of where God may exist and how not everything is as simple as it might seem to an untrained human eye.



  1. Ah, the concept of infinity. Where not only is everything possible at once but has already occurred. Where god exists and simultaneously has never existed all at the same time. I bet there’s even a part of infinity where I can make that leap from skeptic to believer.


  2. This reminds me a lot of the discussions on “faith”. If I can’t see it, I don’t believe it. If so and so can’t prove it or take a digital of it – I ain’t buying into it. Therefore if must not exist. This kind of thinking makes me crazy – turns me into a “mad woman” 😉

    I have to admit – I got a frontal lobe pain reading this…too deep for the A.M. 😉

    I’ll have to re-read it again later so that i get more out of it – cuz I’m sure there’s more in it!

    Oh…more than moles…I detest ants! I stand proudly an ant murderer too…sorry friend 🙂


  3. Take your time there Tam – i know, my mind makes my own head hurt sometimes too! 😉

    Don’t try to force it – if it comes it comes – if not then the message isn’t for you right Now! – if ever. we are all different and Unique after all.

    I’m starting to accept that you are not altogether ‘perfect’ 😉 but then – i am not a huge fan of ants either! We get Bullants over here – suckers are an inch long and bite like a snake!

    We all need some work! some more than others! 🙂

    Hope yesterday’s stress is all gone and you enjoy your day while i slip back into my nightly coma! Ciao Bella!


  4. Have you been taking your meds? What was the point? Or are you making an infinite number of points?

    Huston Smith coined a phrase that reminds me of this;

    Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence.

    Whereas you may be displaying evidence of ample Absinthe.


  5. OK – this is just a big testosterone bath now – you all have gone W-A-Y over my head here…

    Although I did get the difference between the ant walking on the straight wire as opposed to walking in, on, around and jumping from place to place on the cylinder.

    Or are you really just saying, simply because you can’t see something, doesn’t mean it can’t exist?

    I don’t see evidence that lots of people have brains – but they swear they do. I swear I do!

    So…if we can’t detect these other dimensions then how do scientist know they’re there? And what does “curled” up mean? Yes, I have no released you to write a lengthy explanation 🙂


  6. You can’t fit a square pig in a round mole Inworship! lol or into a blog about circular infinity.

    Christian, you missed the point(s)?? It was about Nothing! No Point. The point of Nothing(ness):-) ( only the good points? 😉 )
    I have a permanent absence of absynthe – that stuff can rot yer big grey lumpy thingy in your…. what was your name again? 🙂

    I agree with Huston but we do have to be careful about anything for which there is NO evidence. Of course it all depends on agreement as to what is ‘evidence’, don’t it?

    Sorry Tam – i did say up front it was likely to be a bumpy ride and it was about MY brain and the weird stuff it sometimes does 🙂

    Certainly part of what i said was that what we ‘see/get’ is not always a ‘true’ representation of what actually IS.

    Many people wo do have brains seem to be determined to only ‘use’ 10% of them – does that explain your apparent lack of evidence for other people’s?

    The tightly curved ‘invisible’ dimensions are needed according to some, not all, physicists who are searching for a GUT ( Grand Unifying Theory – something that explains every known force in a single equation) to adequately explain all the known phenomena in the Universe.

    The way scientists ‘know’ these types of things (liked collapsed curved dimensions) can vary but it can depend largely upon pure higher mathematical ‘logic’ and solutions to equations that are totally over my head. And also by ‘implications’ from incredibly complex physical experiments on basic atomic particles. And in some cases they don’t actually have anything normal humans call ‘proof’ just a theory that seems to best fit the observed facts… until something better comes along or because we have learned how to see better and use our minds more.

    I used to accept that this was the ONLY way the world could be understood.

    Then i saw that it was just another version of the Faith people have in God but a LOT more complex (subject to possible error).

    Complexity is what can stuff science ‘Faith’ up.

    Simplicity or oversimplification (and overcomplication too) can stuff Faith in God up.

    Both are subject to human ignorance and capacity for error; both think the other side has the greater capacity for error and ‘they’ are the holders of Absolute truth.

    I see it differently to both camps.

    lengthy enough? 🙂


  7. Well thanks for finally joining us sleepy head 😉

    “Both are subject to human ignorance and capacity for error; both think the other side has the greater capacity for error and ‘they’ are the holders of Absolute truth”

    Honestly, I don’t entirely think the “other side” is “wrong” about everything. I think many things they put their “faith” in has substance. I may not understand it like they or some do – but I don’t discount all of it either. I just believe they are missing the ONE missing link that’s all.

    GUT meaning Good/God is rather interesting. Bottom line…HE will have His way eventually 🙂


  8. Sorry Tam – I was being distracted! 😉

    I agree with you – no side is wholly wrong – just each thinks the other is ‘more wrong’ than they are is all.

    An infinite God certainly would have more patience than us limited lifetime earthlings.

    Usually the one with the most patience wins! 😉

    I really believe that some (Quantum) scientists are now finding more evidence for the existance of God – while ‘believing’ they might be doing the opposite.

    They are looking closely at the infinitely small and the infinitely large and their minds are expanding in both directions – they are making ‘room’ for something much bigger than themselves.

    Science has always tried to look outwardly to understand more about the Universe. Many followers of Religion content themsleves to doing this through ‘God’s Eyes’ or look more inwardly to better understand themselves.

    Being human we don’t always succeed as well as we might like.


  9. Round mole…Very funny 🙂

    they are making ‘room’ for something much bigger than themselves.

    This is one part of our missions statement as a church(our home church Table Rock). To “Reach Up” and experience something bigger than ourselves. I love that word “bigger”. It is a good eye opener to the greatness of God. If we think we have contained God in some way in our little minds, we cease to “experience” Him.


  10. 😉 Thought you might appreciate that one, lol

    One thing i do sometimes when things start getting ‘on top of me’ and i feel like i’m not really sure how to ‘cope’ is…

    I go on a ‘little’ journey in my mind’s eye.

    I go ‘out’ into limitless space and see the glory of entire galaxies turning slowly, majestically in their course.

    Then i go way back down – down to the infinitely small and beyond and witness the atoms and electrons ‘dance’ and then even further ‘down’ and picture the quantum ‘foam’ popping and splurting in seeming total chaos but which contributes to the total order of ‘everything’.

    Seeing just how much ‘more’ there is than ever usually meets our gaze helps put any troubles or problems i’m having into a better ‘perspective’ and all sorts of possibilities begin to open up from the jail i might have been building for myself.

    Seeing things from God’s perspective sure can make us feel small and diminish our everyday concerns accordingly.

    Putting the ego in his proper place in the scheme of things usually ‘deflates’ him a fair bit and makes things a little ‘clearer’ I find.

    It’s a Pity more can’t take my ‘trip’, I reckon.


  11. Uh, ya, so, uh….ok ya, so uh…wow,,,ya…hey wake up we need you over at FC!!!!

    “I really believe that some (Quantum) scientists are now finding more evidence for the existance of God – while ‘believing’ they might be doing the opposite.”

    I believe this wholeheartedly….in their quest to disprove God, they are doing the complete opposite….if I read your blog slow enough, it actually makes sense….LOL


  12. Good morning big guy! That is in no way implying you are a large out of shape man 😉

    I miss you during the day over here… You really do need to start living the grave yard shift. So feel free to go back to sleep in about 3 hours and wake up 8 hours after that! There. Done. Perfect!


  13. Morning Guys! Thanks for dropping by! 🙂 Sure gives a fella a lift 🙂

    Tam – by implication you may be closer than you realise! lol

    FYI I am 1.83 M tall (6 ft) and weigh 90 Kg ( near as dammmit 200 lbs) and am a tad more rounded bout’ the middle than i’d like to be 😉

    I can’t promise anything about my sleep habits (i do so love my bed!) but i will promise to do my best to answer any comment/q within 24 hours lol 🙂 Great blogs btw – what IS a hoo hoo???? 🙂 (giggle)


  14. Hoo-Hoo??? HA-HA!!! 😉

    I know…my blogs have taken a serious turn…eeks! I might have to post something funny later!

    After my post today, and Friendly Christian, it feels like my brain is singeing on all sides!

    It’s good though. I need the challenge. I need to stretch. I need to grow.

    And see how I made this all about me 🙂


  15. Thought I’d drop by to visit our new xian friends…

    Quantum physicists (or any legitimate scientists) do not set out to disprove anything other than proposed hypotheses. Results are compared, critiqued, discarded and re-hypothesized. The pursuit of truth does not work backwards with a set answer in mind.

    Comparing god and mathematics/physics is counterintuitive in this regard. One has an answer and works backwards proving variables, the other has variables and hypothesizes toward an answer.

    I’m not completely sure how to address the OP but it makes me think of the theory of multiverses – which is a natural derivative of string theory. Scientists have been trying for years to link a compatibility to general relativity and quantum mechanics to no avail.

    And much like god, we have zero evidence of the existence of string theory nor can it be tested….guess that makes me a agstringist too.


  16. Welcome Jared! Stop by from time to time – your input will be respected and hopefully appreciated 😉

    First off – I consider myself a student of Christ (and many things besides) and i feel like i am getting closer to an understanding of God.

    I mildly resent being termed a new xian and don’t hold much truck with what i believe are ‘so-called christians’ who don’t really know Him at all taking the name ‘Christian’ and giving the man a bad rep in the process. That goes ditto for many christian churches throughout history.

    Phew! glad i got that off my chest 🙂

    We both realise the God being ‘disproved’ comment was not mine – right?

    I was indoctrinated to the scientific method early in life so get where you were going with that!

    I like to think the two camps you described are converging towards truth but just from different perpectives and methodologies. Giving a wider view of it than either one can alone.

    Agree with your last comment too but the point of the blog was to open a window to the inside of my head – not to prove anything per se.

    My other ‘aim’ in writing it was to see if anyone else could expand their view of the Universe a little to see just how ‘infinite’ and how much room there is in it for seemingly counter-intuitive perspectives! 🙂


  17. Indoctrination is instruction in the fundamentals of a system of belief (such as a philosophy or religion). As such it should not be applied to the scientific method.

    I know: pedantic. 😉


  18. Hiya J 🙂 Welcome back!

    Pedantic? I can be as pedantic as the next man ( or more specifically as the next woman since there is a, statistically speaking, more likely chance anyone i meet next will be female on this planet) but you are in this case, quite simply, wrong! 🙂

    doc·trine /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[dok-trin] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
    2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
    3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.


    [Origin: 1350–1400; ME < AF < L doctrīna teaching, equiv. to doct(o)r doctor + -īna -ine2]

    —Synonyms 1. tenet, dogma, THEORY, PRECEPT, belief.

    Surely you agree that the root of indoctrination is the same as that for doctorine and doctor?

    I chose my word very carefully! 😉

    Next you’ll be trying to tell me scientists don’t believe in themselves without ‘proof’ lol.

    Just because something is usually more associated with religion or a church does not mean it MUST ONLY be!

    The term applies equally as well to teachings about the belief of, and faith in, The Scientific ‘Method’ ( bows down reverentially to IT!)

    What is it with you atheists that you are so dead set against believing that what you believe in isn’t exactly as totally reliant upon belief – Faith (in something, at the very deepest levels) – here we go again! – as those who openly confess their Faith? You’ve just built up this magical framework around yours you call ‘method’ that requires ‘proofs’ strict application of logic (after the magical mystical bit at the beginning) and pretend you’ve done away with ‘mere’ Faith – HOOHA!

    Just open your eyes a TINY bit wider and go that little extra way back/deeper into what (and how) you think to see that i am quite clearly – RIGHT! 🙂

    There truly are none so blind as they who WILL not see. (so much more so than those who cannot)


  19. Please believe all, that it was said with and/or out of Love – OK?

    ( I could prove that theory if you’d like? 😉 )

    And for all you pedants out there – i use the 5th definition of the word ‘theory’ for my practice of saying things out of Love as in:

    5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

    Words can and do have multiple meanings not just the ones you are most familiar with personally – or Think you know.

    Like belief and faith, for example 🙂


  20. And i know I’m a little late but by Hiya J i meant Hiya Hover – Please accept my apologies!
    Can’t think why i got Hover mixed up with Jared and/or Justin who probably only share a love of pedantry?

    At least to the best of my limited knowledge of them, that is 🙂


  21. Hey! I shared my “wow” because I was totally impressed with your comment…Although I find myself re-reading your words several times but eventually they begin to come together for me 🙂

    And….this is your blog – be YOU! You weren’t being preachy. No worries…but were you really worried? 😉


  22. Thank you for the further clarification Tam I kinda got ‘you’ (wow- above) right. You RE-read what i write?? Thank you for investing that much effort in ‘me’ lol 🙂 If only all were as patient and generous with my words as you.

    I know – what i write doesn’t get ‘through’ to people the way i wish, especially when your mind ( not meaning you, but generally people) is so full of ‘yourself’ and what you have grown up believing – or recently been converted into believing as the case may be!

    But I am me – i have a vast ‘viewpoint’ (still limited in one or two areas but i am working on that – I AM – a work In Progress!!!)


    Yes! this IS my blog – all are welcome to the ideas contained within but not all will agree with them (at least not initially) 🙂

    and i’m pretty sure that by now you know me well enough to know to know how worried I was!

    I do worry – but try not to let it get to me too much! 🙂

    And i actually think i was being a tad preachy – but like you said – this is MY blog lol

    Gives me a few rights! So does being Human.

    I just need reminding sometimes that extends to everyone else equally! 😉

    Stand by for my next blog – should be a doozy!

    It may require one or two re-reads (my ‘style’ can take some getting used to! 😉 )but I think you will be in ‘sympatico’ with the General Idea!


  23. i heard an awesome study today on I AM. It will be my new blog for Monday…I AM is the title (name) only for Him. I fall into alot of trouble when I give myself that title…but mostly,if you take it to the second and third person you have, You Are, and He Is….both of which you need for successful ministry. You leave the original title of I AM for Him, tell Him, You are, which in turn allows you the reason for humanities creation, which is to turn to another and say He Is….it’s pretty cool. Just thought I’d share…


  24. The point of the scientific method is that it asks a question and then seeks an answer. Faith works the other way around. Now I’m not saying that this doesn’t work for some people and I’m very happy for anyone who believes that they have the answer. I’d rather test the limits of the answer than accept it at face value.


  25. hmmmmm….

    hover – I would say that faith is just believing in the answers that may not seem logical or have “proof”. I don’t see it as I have been given answers that I have to find reason to. That is not faith to me.


  26. Heya Hov. Aplogies for possibly coming across as a tad facetious to you previously (above).

    I get the Scientific method and it’s benefits – I Truly do. Not arguing against it.

    What i am saying is that as solid as it is it relies upon less than solid ‘foundations’.

    To clarify more: The Axiom that are Axiomatic to any belief or science, while remaining undisproven (???), ensure the whole edifice or constructs remain ‘standing’, but they are only held by belief or faith (as well as common agreement) and can not stand up to the same testing that we use for the SM. We have to take them on Faith and that is where i believe Faith is Indisputable by any form of ‘reason’.

    Have Faith Hov – you do in some things – just extend it a little is all i mean – and don’t throw away logic or reason to get it. 🙂


  27. I’ve just mentioned the laws of thermodynamics in the other post. These are a well known axiom in physics. The point about an axiom is that it works. You cannot prove them because they rely on other axioms in any proofs but they can be shown to function under testing…at least in principle. For instance the laws of thermodynamics cannot be accurately tested because we cannot provide a perfect vacuum to test it in.

    Faith in a supreme being differs from faith in the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics are clearly stated for a start. You don’t need to have an emotional investment to believe in thermodynamics.

    Having said that, I’m finding this all fascinating. I just wish I had more opportunity to participate this week.


  28. I’ll be here longer than a week 😉

    Points for contemplation:

    Don’t get too wrapped in the supreme being as being like a being – just let it be – ALL that IS (and ‘is’ Not!)

    Remember you have a heart and it does more than just pump blood!

    Axioms were made to be broken 😉

    They only work for a limited ‘space’ and time.

    Live a life without limits!

    Come back any time!



I welcome comments - share the love!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s