Where does it ends?

You may find this very crazy, but when I started thinking about it, it really blew my head out.

We are living in a world of "midways". In every dimension we are at just "some" position. We have no idea about the two extremes of the dimension. Be it space or time. In either of the two dimensions, we are just stuck at midway without knowing the starting and ending points. As per my understanding we are not even sure that such extemes exist or not. Terming something boundless does'n fit in our current understanding of the world, since we havn't seen anything boundless. Every object has some starting and ending point, both in space and time. With repect to space, it means every object has finite dimension. And with respect to time, it indicates finite existence period. This is applicable to all objects around us.
So where does this space ends? Universe is the name given to space extending all around us. There is nothing beyond this universe. Here if the word "universe" is treated as any other object, then the question arises, how come it is infinite, boundless when all other objects are finite. Why are we giving universe an infinite space. Why can't there exist any other realm beyond this universe, which itself encompasses this universe?
With our current understanding, we can organise all objects in this universe into spheres of different scope, with every sphere enclosed by an outer sphere and universe forming the outermost one. Our earth forms one such sphere, consisting of continents and oceans each forming a sphere. Sphere represented by earth is itself present in the sphere formed by solar system, which has more earth like spheres in the form of other celestial bodies. Same can be extended to form hierarchy of solar system present in milky way which is in turn present in universe. Another way of organising objects in universe is in a tree structure. Every object is a node of the tree. Earth and similar celestial bodies are present at same level. Similarly galaxies form another level, one level above celestial bodies like planets, stars etc. Node representing an object is parent of all nodes representing objects which come directly under former object. Just like node represented by Milkyway is parent of every other node which corresponds to objects present in Milkyway. Thus Earth node is a child of Milkyway node. At the top of the tree, the root node, is the universe, parent of all other objects.
Now, my point is that why do we stop at universe? Why can't this hierarcy or tree be extended beyond it? Simple logic says that universe must also be a part of something above it, just like every thing else is. Why is universe considered ultimate or topmost sphere. It is like saying something called X is not present in anything else. How is this possible? Such an idea defies the property of every object found in this universe which is, that every object is part of some other larger object. Why and how is this property not applicable to object called universe?
Another thing to point out is that we acknowledge that universe is expanding. If it is the topmost sphere, enclosing every other object, then where is it expanding? Blowing a balloon makes it to expand in the space outside its surface, that is it occupies some more space in the object enclosing it. Applying same to expanding universe, it follows that there is space outside this universe and that there is another entity enclosing this universe, which is providing it space to expand.
If you buy this logic, then it automatically gives space for another question.

If universe is not at top of tree, then where and how does this tree ends?
If we continue by above logic, it looks like there couldn't be any end to the hierarchy since every object needs to be present in something bigger and larger than itself. But it has to end somewhere. That means there is something which is not present in anything else, which is at top of the hierarchy tree, which is the ultimate sphere, encompassing every other sphere in itself.
These two concepts look like contradicting each other:
1) Hierarchy of spheres or the tree should end at some point.
2) Everything is a part of some biggert thing.
Each of them sounds logical but cannot hold true without violating the other one. If every object is present in some other bigger object, then how can this organisation of objects ever end? And if there is anything which is encompassing all objects then how is it even existing? It is hard to imagine an object which is not enclosed in another object. Our current experience forbids us to believe this. But again, this hierarchy can't extend ad infinitum. It needs to end somewhere.
Does that mean we are missing something in this whole setup? Is there any glitch in the foundation of this argument?

Now all above arguments hold true when we treat universe as any other object, which is the case when we say "galaxies are part of the universe". Essentially, here universe is just another entity like galaxy and is supposedly at one level higher than the galaxy.
But "universe" can also be treatd in another sense. A boundless universe is in essence acting as synonym for the dimension space. Now treating universe as object is similar to treating a dimension as an object and trying to find its boundary is like finding dimensions of space, which doesn't really makes sense. A notion, an idea, a concept can not be expressed using itself. So, trying to find bounds of universe is like calculating limits of space. Space is just a dimension, not an object. A dimension is just a concept, an idea which has no physical existence but used to describe objects having physical existence. Again treating universe in same sense as dimension space, it becomes difficult to digest the phenomenon of expansion of universe. How can space extend? Space is already boundless. It is a concept, not having any physical existence. It is like extending number line beyond infinities. Expanding universe makes sense only when we treat universe as object.
So, does that mean we are living in a boundless world, which keeps extending, no matter how far we go. It is similar to tracing infinity on a number line. No matter how large a number you write, you are still at same distance from infinity. As soon as this concept of infinity comes into picture, all our established principles take a nosedive, hitting face down on hard floor.

My belief is that if we ignore the phenomenon of "expansion of universe", then universe should be treated in the sense as dimension space, a notion that describes the characteristics of the physical objects. Universe itself is not an object, b'coz had it been so, it would be bounded, finite, thus giving rise to above mentioned questions. In such scenario, the idea of an ultimate sphere or a root of hierarchy tree does not hold true since there always exists a possibility of another object that is larger than the current root or ultimate sphere. With respect to number line concept, it is like treating 9999999999 as the largest number encompassing all others, but you can still find another number which is larger than 9999999999. Moreover you can go on doing this, it is never going to end. An object as large as infinity cannot exist, b'coz that would make it boundless. A boundless object can exist as a notion only, just like dimension space. In fact, a boundless object can be used in same sense as the dimension space, and that is exactly the case with word "universe" as well.
But, since the observation of universe expansion been corroborated by several sources, then, considering it as a fact, universe should be treated as another object in this notion of space as argued above. Which means we are still not aware what lies beyond this universe. It is like we are living in a balloon which is being expanded by blowing in air. Our universe is this very balloon, and we still need to explore the realms outside this universe. This doesn't really makes universe infinite or boundless.

This piece of writing took a hell lot of thinking from my side and really found it difficult to convert thoughts to words, more so in a way that can be easily understood. I am still not entirely convinced if I have been able to convey what I wanted to.

Anything "supernatural" is still very much natural...

"Supernatural" a word used very casually for anything beyond our understanding. What actually we mean when qualifying an event as supernatural is something which cannot happen in nature, something which defies the laws of nature. But is there really anything which can overcome the laws of nature? Can there by anything which can go beyond nature. There is no doubt that nature is the governing body of this cosmos. Then how can any phenomenon be termed as operating outside the laws of nature? Anything and everything that occurs in this universe has to abide by these laws and that directs to only one conclusion...everything is natural. There is nothing called "supernatural" which can bypass these laws. In this context "supernatural" word is logically meaningless.

But if viewed from another perspective, which is very similar to the above one, it holds its implication. This perspective has more to do with the capability of human mind to understand things. We humans have developed our own laws and theories regarding how and why things happen the way they do. These laws may really not the way things are actually carried out in the "real nature". Its only our perception that the processes and events are following these laws. Following this perception we have developed our own understanding of the "real nature". I am not saying our understanding is completely wrong but it is obviously not complete. Its only a proper subset of the "real nature" that lies out there. That implies there exists a gap between the "real nature" and our understanding of it. Shall we call it "delta nature"? Lets go with it.
Now any event that falls within the scope of our understanding of the "real nature" is termed as "natural" and normal. Anything which goes beyond it and falls in the realms of "delta nature" is called as "supernatural". Well, now this word makes sense to me. Anything which discards the laws that we presume are governing the nature can be termed as supernatural. It has nothing to do with the "real nature" which is still beyond the understanding of human mind. In this context the classification of events as supernatural is actually governed by the capability of the human mind to understand things.

Very recently there occurred an incident in India which attracted quite a bit of limelight in the media and it also showcases the fact that events termed as supernatural are really natural and what makes them supernatural is the confined knowledge and understanding possessed by human beings about the "real nature".
The news article can be read here.
It is about a priest at some place in India who claimed to dip an year-old baby in boiling water for a split second. And, to please those who believe in God, by the grace of God, the baby didn't suffer any injuries. The locals may term it as supernatural event. For them its supernatural because it defies their understanding of the process that boiling oil causes burns if someone comes into its contact.
But at the same time, this event loses the adjective "supernatural" when someone explains them that this is just another case of the bubbling effect. People who are aware of this bubbling effect phenomenon, I am pretty sure, will never term this as a supernatural event.

Significance of a the word "supernatural" entirely depends on the understanding of the person analyzing the concerned event. If it goes beyond his knowledge, he may very well term it as supernatural. But it does not mean the event has defied the laws of "real nature". It is still confined by the boundaries demarcated by the "real nature" and as such every "supernatural" event is still very much natural.

Pray...But why?

I have started developing a habit of thinking on issues that can, in a more broader context, be categorized as philosophical. Today it just struck me, why do we need to pray to someone called "God". I don't want to go by emotions to find its answer. Many people describe it as a means to communicate to "God" and appreciate "His" good work. This simple answer, to me, appears to be as far away from logic as sky from earth. My belief is that for every action there is a logical meaning associated with it. My tendency is to hunt for such a logical mentality that gave birth to such action. And this is how I conceptualized my answer...
During our early days as civilization, we used to pray to forces which were more powerful than us. Prayer in that situation is a symbol of weakness, symbolizing your surrender to the authority of more powerful forces. They used to think that the natural calamities are targeted to them. Those natural calamities were not at all natural to them. Moreover they had no means to gain control over them. Even today, if we apply the same situation to us, we will find the answer how and why people would have started praying, what could be the reason for starting such a practice.
Suppose at some night a group of people, all of them far more superior in strength than you are, came barging in to your house. You are all alone at home, no one to support you or take your side. Assume, for a time being and to put you into the shoes of those people in early days, you are virtually cut off from rest of the world. That group of people starts destroying your house, smashing each and every thing to bits and pieces. What are you going to do at this stage? You can just simply stand and see all this destruction or if you are a bit more emotional, you may start pleading them to stop their act of rampage. Now replace yourself with people of that era and that bunch of bullies with the natural forces. Now do you see why they used to pray.
They used to plead since they had no control over theose forces. They were helpless against those forces and the only viable option available was to plead. To say "we are praying" is nothing but a more polite way of pleading, its a digression from the word "plead". Similarly God of that era is nothing but something superior to us, more powerful than us and over which we had no control, about which we had no knowledge, and whose functionality is opaque to us. Any such thing can be termed as God. But then we also started distinguishing such forces into two categories. One which does some good to us, which helps in our survival, which supports us in our day-to-day life. This we called as good force and later termed as God. On the other hand, anything which came in way of our quest to survival was termed as bad, evil, demonic.
Now to continue with our example, and next few lines are important to establish why this action of pleading became inherent in our lives. Say that bunch of guys, who were destroying your house while you were pleading them, were random in their nature just like monsoons in India. And because of this random attitude, while you were pleading, they decided to walk away to some other place (may be to target some one else). What kind of effect will this have on you? Not hard to guess, I think. If in case, and lets say this be the case, you are not aware of their random behavior, you would assume that the bunch of guys were targeting you and your pleading melted their hearts and saved you. Here you see how easily you are falling into trap of false understanding. Next time if you are put into same situation, you are surely going to follow what you did now i.e. to plead. This is because the last time you pleaded, you got away. In other words, you are under the impression that pleading helped you to save your life, completely ignorant of the fact that it was the random nature of that bunch of mindless buggers and not your prayer that saved you. This is exactly how the act of pleading became a part of our lives.
If we are up against a hopeless situation wherein we are totally helpless, our first instinct is to start praying. And if luckily, we get away from that situation unscathed, we think our prayers worked. The mistake we are making here is we are insulating ourselves from rest of the world and think that only our efforts can make difference, if any, which is always a misconception. We are neglecting the impact that other parties, directly or indirectly, connected with that situation. In fact, it is almost impossible to determine who all are the "participants" in a particular situation.
This lead to another interesting phenomenon, that achieving success does not completely depends on your efforts alone. Rather, it depends on all the forces participating in that process. Here, considering a closed world, the process consisted of you and that bunch of buggers only. Success from your point of view was to save yourself. You did your best by pleading them but that had no effect on those guys. Instead, you were saved by virtue of their random behavior, over which you had no control.
Although this is very hypothetical and simplified example, but can be extended to any degree of complexity to simulate a real world scenario.