This tractate is a process of stepping onto a surface of quicksand whose depth is indeterminable. The only tangible aspect of this tractate is an intuitive sense that the depth of this 'quicksand' will go well beyond Einstein and his concepts of relativity as it applies to metaphysical thought. To avoid such a journey, however, is to turn away from the true nature of metaphysics, which is to explore regions yet to be theoretically examined by science itself... To shun examining the full implications of a new metaphysical system including its impact upon the theoretical is to shun the obligations of the most basic principles of metaphysics itself: 'To thine own self be true.' And why is the principle 'To thine own self be true.' so basic to metaphysics? Principles are so fundamentally basic to metaphysics because it is metaphysics, which deals with the most basic of principles, principles rooted in the purity of truth itself. The new metaphysical perception which the individual acting within God creates regarding Zeno, Newton, Einstein, relativity, and the modern physics of quantum mechanics is an unusual one to say the least. Modern physics is immersed in the realm of the physical universe. This is as it should be. What should not be the case however is the perplexing abstractual state of existence within which modern mathematics (the language of physics) and physics find themselves existing. Mathematics and modern physics find themselves immersed within the realm of physicality with no sense of understanding the abstractual significance of the very physical reality they are examining. Mathematics and physics are in a state of abstractual confusion. This state of abstractual confusion was not 'created' by mathematics and physics but rather was created by the inability of metaphysics to break out of its state of uncertainty regarding the most fundamental of first truths: 'I am.' 'The universe is.' '1st cause is.' This state of uncertainty regarding whether first truth is 'I am.', 'The universe is.', or '1st cause is.', once logically hurdled will allow metaphysics to once again lay down a model which can act as a challenge, act as a guide towards which the energies of mathematics and physics may be directed. Until a theoretical goal is established by metaphysical ingenuity, mathematics and physics will have no beacon towards which they can advance. Without such a beacon, mathematics and physics will have no choice but to visualize each new advance as a step into the blackness of the unknowable which they find surrounding their reality of the physical. Each step will no doubt expand their horizons, expand the very limits of their presently existing physical universe but each expansion will find itself forever being followed by the question: Into 'what' did our expanding universe just expand? ... It is this new metaphysical system, the individual acting within God which allows us to understand, in the metaphysical sense, the interrelationship between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics. If the new metaphysical system of the individual acting within God aids us in understanding the connection between metaphysical Newtonian physics and metaphysical Einsteinian physics, what then becomes of the 'i'. Is 'i' a grammatical error? 'i' is not a grammatical error. The 'i' is in fact, 'i' not I. ... It is through the process of following the trail the concept 'i' marks as it travels through the physics of Newton and then moves through the physics of Einstein that we gain an understanding as to the metaphysical concepts Einstein's introduction of relativity has to offer us as a species of rational, reasoning entities of individuality. So where do we begin? We begin by examining the most obvious aspect of our reality. We begin by examining what it is we find ourselves immersed within. We begin by examining the realm we call space.
About the Author: Mathematics/Science Undergraduate degree - University of Michigan Master's degree in Physical Science - Eastern Michigan University 30 years teaching mathematics & science 20 years science and/or mathematics department chair I'm not sure if I became a philosophical thinker because I was a depressant or if I became a depressant because I was a philosophical thinker. Whichever the case, I am both. To make matters even stranger I am an optimistic depressant philosophical thinker. Actually it might be more accurate of me to state that I am an optimistic depressant philosophical thinking metaphysicist. But how did metaphysics enter the picture? During my early teens I began questioning what was 'out there beyond ...' Over time this thinking sequentially lead to 'beyond the stars', 'beyond the galaxy', 'beyond time and space' until I came to the end of the physical universe itself. Once I had reached this 'outer wall' of the physical universe. I could not help but mentally poke a hole in this wall. Having created a hole in the outer wall of the physical, I peered through the hole only to see nothing. At this point I was mesmerized with questions that forever haunted me: What is this nothingness on the 'outside' of the physical universe? What is the physical universe immersed within? What is out there? What are the characteristics of this existence outside the universe? What does this outside of the universe have to do with us, with myself, with God Itself? The questions became cruelly unrelenting and overpoweringly dominating of my very psyche. With time and the use of humanity's four perceptual tools (observation - science, universal teachings - religions, rational dialectics - philosophy and universal language - mathematics) the answers began to reveal themselves. The answers came not in terms of a bias on the part of one tool as opposed to another but in terms of all four tools agreeing with each other. The biggest hurdles to the work came in the form of cynicism, skepticism, closed minds and most of all in the form of the words, 'can't', 'its impossible to know', 'humankind is not intended to understand', 'prove it'. In all good conscience, it must be stated, 'We cannot prove anything beyond all doubt ...' Having stated the obvious, we can then move on to state: '... but we can 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt.' So it is a new model of reality emerged capable of leading our species into the new age of the third millennium.