Maybe so in your universe but the universe of another, may be extremely different. By that rationale, what would be the next concieved life's current existance, because it would have to have one to be a part of this universe you speak of.

The next conceived life would be made up of particles that had previously been food items and were converted into tissue by the gestating mother. I am of this school of thought too. We come from the earth and we go back to it. All particles are infinitely recycled!

Ideas, imagination and even creation. Day, light has dawned, were you thinking of that too.

hmm, not sure what you mean here... Are you quoting something? I'm not a scholar as much as I am a ponderer so a lot of references will probably go over my head :perplexed:
I just meant that I agree that particles are used again and again to make up different objects in the physical world. Now if you're talking spirit that's different...

Yeah, I think I am cutting your legs out from underneath you, although I would still like to here your response to the other tangible suggestions. The universe and all its particles must continue to increase as long as we continue to imagine. Imagination leads to invention, invention to creation and creation cannot be earmarked simply as recycling.

[quote=diamantis]In a universe like that ,with no proportional constraints, everything that we can discern-at any moment-organic or inorganic , us included , can not be separated from its environment, is indistinguishable from its environmet,and therefore, being an integral part of the universe.[/quote]So why is it that I can tell the difference between my left hand and my right hand?

Ok I am still not sure how your previous statement fit in, but I disagree with at least one of your premises here.

What says the universe MUST increase with imagination? Perhaps imagination is more the tool giving us the ability to conceive new uses for what we already have, as opposed to a method of creating new matter.

And while I agree that imagination leads to invention, and invention to creation, I don't see why calling creation recycling is a problem. I can't think of anything that isn't made from something else.

While the imagination and invention are in the mind and don't require the use of physical matter to form, as soon as you put those ideas into physical form as an invention you are using matter that once was something else. For example, if I invent a lightbulb, I come up with the idea and then use sand and metal to make my creation into reality. Sounds like recycling to me. In order to make an idea into a physical reality we must use the materials we have on hand. Unless some way is discovered to create new matter from nothing, there is really no option, but to choose from the many materials already present in the world. Imagination alone does not create physical objects - a medium is needed.

What about light from the light bulb, sound, we drop a rock into a pond and make waves, I think the list is endless. You seem to overlook the obvious as being already there. Sound can move things, light can burn things and waves can erode. These are all by products of inventions, ideas and creations, so from what did I recycle them from.

I thought we were talking about physical matter.
While there are many things that can affect the state of physical matter, they do not create it from nothing. Sound moves things, it doesn't create them. Light makes heat which changes the speed of the particles, it doesn't create them. Waves cause rock to break into smaller pieces and/or to change location, it doesn't create it. The items being moved, burned or eroded were there already, and continue to be there long after they are moved, burned or eroded - they are just in a different form.
Are we talking about the same thing here?

To get back to the original assertion, I interpret this part
"is indistinguishable from its immediate surroundings"
to mean not that our senses can not distinguish them, but that molecularly they are indistinguishable. The car was once rock, which was once a mountain, which was once the bottom of the ocean, which was once lava etc.

In the lightbulb example, I believe we talking about discovery rather than creation.

Creation is a funny word, in a sense humans never create anything. We can't form matter out of nothing - all we can do is reorganize it in new ways that produce previously unobserved results. We are creating ideas but not matter.

Exactly my point!