== A Simple Introduction to the Thoughts of: A Cat Drinking Tea ==
=== '''The Limits:''' ===
In the method of ''The Universe'' how far have we really come? On the grand scale will we ever approach the end? What I really ask is... what are the limits? To say there are no limits would be a fallacy because there has to be a pressing end to existence or at least an approximation. If the limits take the space of every quark in the universe, then so be it, but how will we ever know if it's not within the limits of our perception? There must be a limit to imagination. A limit to experience. How far can we push our mental capacities? May we only know what there is to know?

Why must there be limits? To answer this I will apply the same reason we don't have a universe that is infinite in size, because we want to. We like having limits/ends because it makes the unachievable seem within our grasp, within the potential of human endeavor. We must apply some domestic rules to our way of thought in doing so we limit ''The Universe'' to how we see fit. But the limits of thought do not rely on the real world, the world of what we know. Can we imagine something that doesn't exist?

How many different experiences can one have? How many things can one do in a lifetime? How many books can one read? How many different things can one see? The limit there is the finality of life and the limits of time. Time always seems to catch us and limit all. Space is another limit that limits all. If we imagine the universe as a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_group]] we can see the potentials of binary operations which all things must ultimatly simmer down to.

How much information can an image store? Can an image only provide enough information to people who can understand it? How much information can a scent hold? How many other things have limits of conceptual information?

=== '''The Sufferings:''' ===
Why do I do this to myself? Why do I make myself suffer? The questions people ask may seem, trivial, but they hold deeper meanings. Must the human mind truly sway in such a easy way. How do we get from a bunch of atoms in a fortuitous formation, to a strangely complex being pondering their suffering. This is because things happen on a gradient. All things must first occur on a gradient. This goes for things such as intelligence, where the human mind may be compared to others, but none truly different from a zoomed out perspective. The more you zoom out the more fuzzy the gradient becomes, and soon enough you have homogeneity. Lets apply some transformations to the concept of intelligence. When you zoom in, can the mind truly be that different, well it seems so. The mind is determined by the experiences which it holds, these experiences leads to extravegant actions that range from eccentric to seemingly normal. What if we see intelligence in reverse, what about the concept of stupidity?

Is the average concept applicable? Most people would say that killing someone is bad, but is this really the case. When you see that not many hold different opinions can you really trust it, how much thought do individuals truly apply to standard preconceptions. The notions we hold that are similar to others may need to be rethought. How much do we need a homogeneous world? I think we don't.

How much can we trust our emotions? Can we trust fear? There is a saying that 'the irrational fear the irrational, the rational fear nothing', what if there is someone who instead of fearing they color their world with disillusionment, then are they rational?

Are human minds more ordered or chaotic than animal minds? If there was an extremly complex human mind would the complexity determine that it is chaotic? If our minds are more structured then how does this limit the creation of new thoughts and ideas?

Control of thought, control of mind, control of body, control of group, control of society. The only thing we have to protect are our thoughts. But this isn't true because they aren't safe. How much are new thoughts based on outside factors? Almost entirely, we wouldn't be able to think about anything if we didn't understand language, if we didn't see things. How can we change the creation of new thoughts to be more useful or beneficial?