On Infinitesimalness

[lhynard]

More about me since I've already broken my usual patterns[1, 2]I rarely had nightmares growing up. One of the exceptions was a recurring dream I had that consisted simply of a spot that kept getting smaller and smaller and smaller... until I could not take it anymore and I woke up. I think that my young brain simply could not handle the idea of

Comments

[triphicus]

I share your wonder :) I always say that if I hadn't felt called into NT scholarship, I would have become an astronomer. The idea that life itself is made possible through the implosions of supergiants is absolutely fascinating to me. I. love. stars.

[lhynard]

I find them beautiful as well. Most of my desktop wallpaper is astronomical.

[dogs_n_rodents]

I chose to study chemistry over biology in part because it is the study of the details. Biology deals in black boxes. I wanted to open them up. I don't care that the blood carries oxygen; I want to know how the blood carries oxygen, down to the smallest detail -- I want to see models of how that little diatomic molecule is bound to the iron in the center of that porphyrin ring in hemoglobin. I want to understand how the wave mechanics of the electrons in the molecular orbitals control oxygens odd reactivity.

I'm totally with you there. It's not enough to say that a protein is responsible for a certain metabolic function, we chemists/biochemists want to know what chemical/environmental stimuli cause the protein to behave in a certain way, what type of chemical bonds trigger proper protein behavior? What chemical bonds trigger improper behavior?

Why does the simple equation HY = EY have such a complex answer -- so much so that we can only be certain of the energy of a mere H2 molecule? (And if the equation comes out HY=EY, do note

[lhynard]

Perhaps your interest in linguistics and chemistry are correlated (at least I'm inclined to believe that my own Latin/Greek interests are correlated with my chemistry tendencies) -- to the extent that linguistics, like chemistry, probes the inner-most workings of languages.
Yeah, I think you are totally correct.

[shadewright]

And in this we are wired differently.

I'd much rather watch a swallow enjoy a spring wind, or an epic adventure story, than figure out how either was made. To my mind, all that stuff is kind of neat, but it's background, not the point. As I see it, the point to all those sub-atomic particles is that God wanted to enjoy a little thing He dreamed up and called "bird"--I find it hard to believe that He dreamed the bird up as a new way to combine the subatomic particles.

The end result is the end result for a reason--the big picture is the reason all the little pieces exist.

But that's just my take. I'm a Mac user at heart, and people like you made Microsoft the giant it is. For all I know, God might like DOS & Windows....

*shiver*

.....eerie silence...

did I just blaspheme somehow? Why do I have this nagging feeling that MS is...just evil?

In all seriousness, I am sure that God can not be categorized. But it's funny how different two people can be, when they're so much alike.

[lhynard]

:)

(I don't like Microsoft either, by the way.)

To me the forest is the trees. But a tree is not a forest. I'm not unaware of the big picture; the big picture is so amazing to me because I see the detail in it.

A little bird is adorable and fascinating to watch, but it is even more fascinating for me to think about how complex it is in its workings.