Newton's laws of motion take inertia for granted. "Corpus omne

persevere in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum

nisi quatenus ilud a viribus impresis cogitur statum suum mutare."

(Bodies all persevere in their states of quiescence or of motion uniform

in direction unless by forces impressed upon them they are compelled

to change their states.) Newton's laws of motion take inertia

for granted.

General relativity takes gravity for granted. "Matter tells

space-time how to bend; space-time tells matter how to move." But

gravity is taken for granted.

Quantum electrodynamics takes electricity for granted.

Mathematicians usually take space and time for granted. Their

problem is whether space and time are continuous or discrete.

Most
physicists and cosmologists seem to take non-existence for

granted.
The Big Bang cosmologists want us to believe that nothing

made everything
o , of nothing.

I am not wining to take all this for granted. With the mystics,

on
observational grounds, I take existence for granted. I see it.

Suppose
we take existence for granted but leave out space and

time, can we,
from what remains, get a Universe of gravity, electricity

and inertia?
That is the problem.

First, what remains when we leave out space and time? What can

we
not have in the absence of space and time? We cannot have change

without
time. We cannot have division without space. And we cannot

have the
finite without another to limit it. So we are left with the

changeless,
the infinite, the undivided. Can we, from that, get a

Universe of
change, made of minuscule particles, and divided into

atoms? How
can we get from the changeless to the changing without

changing the
changeless? How can we get from the infinite to the

finite without
fencing it, without limiting it? And how can we get

from the anditided
to the divided without dividing it?

That is easy. We simply mistake the one for the other