TaN: In one of Rupert Sheldrake’s talks (at TED) — the one that was pulled/banned allegedly because it revealed damaging facts about the science that conventional scientists and the controlling interests do not want people to know (and realize) — he mentioned that many so-called and generally accepted universal constants are not constants at all, such as gravity (or Big G, as he alleges is commonly known or called by physicists and their fellow scientists) and the speed of light. Perhaps I can offer one possible explanation.
Since gravity is affected by distance (from the source of gravity) and the Earth has been shown to be more of a pear-shaped rather than an oval cosmic orb, will it be possible that the measurements being done at different parts of the globe may be due to the different distances of the laboratories measuring gravity from the (true) center of the planet? Moreover, since light is (likewise) affected by gravity — as evidenced and proven in black holes and such science stuff — could it likewise be possible that, since the cosmic bodies and matter of the universe is not evenly or uniformly distributed, could it likewise be possible that this affects the speed or behavior of light?
A “less” plausible but not any less valid is that the universe is in constant flux and nothing stay the same or constant. It is ever-changing — just like the Creator. The universe was never meant to be steady or constant. Everything in it is intended to keep changing, just like the fact that even when one seems to be rooted to a particular spot, one is actually in constant motion for the spot where one is standing on is part of a spinning orb which is ever-orbiting around a star which, in turn, is at the fringes of one of the arms of its home galaxy (Milky Way) that is hurtling through space at who knows where…(part of) a universe that is ever-expanding.
It is in this light that it seems unlikely that there are constants in the universe. Probably, the only constant is constant motion. Nothing in this universe is steady or fixed; everything is in constant motion — either spinning/rotating or flying away from other cosmic bodies. And even though there are stationary objects, like trees and mountains, they may not be moving on their own but they are being moved — earth movements via the tectonic plates and floating mantle or the rotation of the planet and its revolution around a star or even just hurtling through space towards some undetermined destination.
Because of this, I see no reason why even in the abstract world of ideas and numbers (like Mathematics), their so-called constants are likewise moving. There is always movement. Sometimes, movements are not obvious, as in the glacial movements that takes centuries and a millennium just to nudge forward a tiny bit.
Probably the only exceptions are the basics or fundamentals; those that form the basis of everything else. They, by definition and inference, cannot be ever-changing otherwise they cannot be called basics or fundamentals. As they say, the only thing that does not change is change itself.
TaN: Just the other day, I heard someone on television say that (to paraphrase) “…technology is a double-edged sword“, implying that its harm or benefits depend on how we use it. This is true but only a partial truth. The whole truth is that everything and even creature is a double-edged sword — except for man.
With the exception of man, everything is neither good nor bad. This is because goodness and evilness are only possible when there is free will. When the ability to chose between good and evil is absent, any action or decision will be made due to instinct or natural laws. Since man claims only he possesses free will — as a gift from God — therefore only man has the ability or freedom to chose to do good or evil. Everything else is neither good or evil and the consequences that result from their use or deployment cannot be held against them. With this argument, technology and everything else are double-edged.
It is the intention or willingness that determines whether an act is good or bad. Killing is neither good nor bad because in order for life to exist and continue, it is necessary that another life be taken — except for autotrophs, where their continued existence or survival is taken from the inanimate (like plants taking minerals and nutrients from soil and synthesizing them into food for their consumption with the help of radiant or solar energy. Every other living creature needs to take the life of another to sustain itself.
Determining good from evil is a complicated matter and requires many factors or considerations. This is precisely why the Holy Scriptures say that “Vengeance is mine said the Lord“. We can only judge the act but not the intention behind it because we cannot see into the soul and this is why we are limited to the act and nothing more.
And so, saying that something is double-edged, i.e., it can be both good and evil, is redundancy. It is rhetorical.
TaN: There is a dilemma in the two adages: (1) Do something well or don’t do it all and (2) Not everything worth doing is worth doing well.
On the one hand, the former encourages us to strive for excellence, that no task is too small or insignificant or trivial, that one should put one’s heart and soul into whatever s/he is tasked to do. This adage teaches us pride and dignity in all our endeavors, that we must be able to be proud of whatever task we are to do. This shows the kind of person one is; one who is worthy of respect and recognition.
On the other hand, the latter argues that one should differentiate between tasks that are worthy of doing and those that are inconsequential — these are usually the in-betweens or transitionals or just to kill time. That we should not waste too much time and effort on tasks that are fleeting and have no noticeable impact or influence on events and things. This may likewise apply to situations where the task at hand just had to be done but has little or no intrinsic value that it is not worth putting too much effort to its perfection.