Yes, I get it! An intention is a definition of character. You're saying the Universe is made up of intentions which have grown upon the definitions of other intentions... that mathematical equations should be based on conceptual mechanics rather than quantum mechanics: because quantum mechanics are actually based upon our expectations of divisible matter rather than the character at the heart of each manifestation."

Kent: "Hey! Can I quote you on that? Yeah, that's it. And to further draw analogies between the microcosm and the animal world let me say this: concepts or intentions grow upon each other in such a manner as to defy separation from their background or beginnings even though they may each have their points. This very nearly describes the nature of a quantum field. Do you see the analogies?

“Kind of throws a whole different mental spin on a super-collider doesn't it? What's the point of slamming characterizations together? As if slamming Tom, Harry, Jane, and Belinda together with destructive force would or could reveal more about them than the mere observance of their interactions."

Nerd: "Yes, but super-colliders have proved to be productive and enlightening. By splitting particles we have determined several other discrete manifestations.”

Kent: “Truly that is a very important point but realistically the particles mean significantly more in our use of their prearranging relationships.”

Montahue: "Slavery?"

Kent: "Don't get lost here. We were speaking metaphorically of Tom, Harry, Jane, and Belinda. Sometimes, random events seen in particle collisions are nothing more than representations of character: particles, which might have particular, yet transitory, ways of behaving under certain circumstances.

Montahue: "Yeah, okay, but what about the analogy of slavery?"

Kent: "Uuuuh yeah, okay. Good one." a frown upon his face.

Montahue: "See I was keeping up. I'm not so dumb." He says dropping the arm with the microphone to his side, while letting the ‘steam’ out from under his collar with the other hand.

- Audience laughter. -

Kent: "A slave is a tool because of their physical abilities. Their character is just a distraction, if not a nuisance. This analogy has nothing to do with my discussing particle physics. Character is a word I use to describe the fact that particles have discriminating relationships."

The priest stands quickly. Montahue jumps to give him the attention, eager to move past his inability to follow the conversation.

Priest: "You cause me to question something here. I’ve long believed our bodies are the vessels which God uses to train and teach our character. I’ve always thought this concept was a little harsh because it implies an ugly truth: our souls are trapped inside an undeniable circumstance, the tool versus the character. But what if our characters’ needs grow beyond the scope of the tool? Is this what evolution is about? Those inexplicable changes in the evolutionary sequence are actually ‘character growth’ choices, such that when our cumulative character grows beyond our present bodies, these or God, will enter another new adaptation into the evolutionary process? Like an autonomic recreating continuous learning curve? The tool, our body, places us into the

top