Is it the paradgim of ologies ? Hence the capture of these paradgims represents , truth , without question ? What restrains new knowledge , is old thinking .

What restrains new knowledge is size. At Planck scale things are no longer observable as solid objects, but as probabilistic clouds and measurements become "uncertain". This is why I believe the application of the fractal function may become the new frontier.

An self-similarity from infinitely large to infinitely small. A very simple equation can turn this into infinite forms of expression. see below, the Mandelbrot fractal. Note the number of exponential iterations. Every form you see is produced by the process of self iteration at different scales of magnification.

They may be relevant to the unfolding of the fabric of the universe itself. i.e. a quantum self-similar iteration of spacetime itself. Read Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) developed by Renate Loll and Jerzy Jurkiewics And that refers again to the thread; a Universe from Nothing.

An self-iterating geometric expansion is by definition a fractal function and may well be the driving force (change) of all emerging phenomena within the universe. In string theory science speaks of a foam like substance of Planck scale vibrations, which have the potential to form the stuff (mass) of atoms (such as suggested by the Higgs field). Note that all atoms (elements) of the same kind are identical in construction. Again that is a fractal function. You can find the fractal function everywhere you look. Even cell division is a natural fractal function.

sure but fractals are physical , nothing to do with space . fractals don't produce space . space is the consequence of energy .

What makes you so sure fractality is physical only. Perfect circles don't exist in reality either, yet the tendency to become circular is a universal natural function. Fractality is not a thing, it is a mathematical universal function. And yes, energy is required for fractality to become functional and become expressed in reality.

Perhaps, the meticulous nature of scientists leads to the perception that their entrenched paradigms stifle new paradigms. Now, we know that Wegener was on to something--------(he blew it with causality) but, at the time, most in that area of scientist were based n the northern hemisphere, and they just did not see it. And, in archaeology/anthropology, we have the errors of Vere Gordon Childe which misled the science fr over 50 years. The question of whether reticence to accept new paradigms is a benefit in keeping science scientific, or a determent to innovation is ever-present.

Apparently the debate about paradigms has been going on for some time. The link below may offer some insights. Philosophies guiding research. http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Res...pes-of-research/Philosophies-guiding-research