WWB Research

Flux

(7 Jan 2026 Edition: Flux)

Audio Edition

~ 10 to 12 minutes of audio

Speed: 1.00

I’m your host, Michael Alan Prestwood and this is the

Wednesday, January 7 2026 edition

of the Weekly Wisdom Builder. The core research that informs the week’s TST Weekly Column.

This is the expanded story mode edition.

This week’s idea is flux: the simple but unsettling idea that everything changes. It’s a fitting place to begin the renewed Weekly Wisdom Builder, now a research-and-learn branch of my TST Weekly Column. Rather than racing through topics, each week pauses on a single idea and explores it. Flux felt like the right starting point—not just as a concept, but as a reminder that change itself can be a source of wisdom.

This week’s reflections draw on Heraclitus and the ancient roots of impermanence, touching on everything from the constellations above us to the brief stretch of time each of us occupies here on Earth.

With that, let’s frame the week’s key idea.

This week’s idea is Flux.

This week, we explore Flux through the lens of Heraclitus.

Flux is impermanence. To understand it, think about change.

Now for this week’s 6 Weekly Crossroads. The goal, to blend and forge intersections into wisdom.

Ideas here are not replaced when they evolve—they are refined, annotated, and revisited.

Supporting the effort are tidbits.

This structure allows essays to remain readable and reflective, while citations stay precise, visible, and accountable.

On the home page are the key ideas for each, the core takeaways are also available here, but this story mode is the only place to get the “rest of the story.”

1.

A History Story.

From History:

Subject: Pre-Socratic Philosophy.

Heraclitus

born circa 535 BCE

circa 535 to 475 BCE, likely aged about 60 years old

Heraclitus taught that reality exists in constant flux, held together by the tension of opposing forces—an insight that echoes Eastern impermanence and the balance of yin–yang.

Stepping back for a moment.

Heraclitus lived around 500 BCE in the Greek city of Ephesus, and he saw something most people miss: nothing ever truly stands still. Rivers flow. Fires burn. Lives change. Even the things that look solid are only holding their shape for a while. Heraclitus wrote in sharp, almost cryptic fragments, not essays, which earned him the nickname the Dark Philosopher. But beneath the mystery was a clear idea—reality is not made of fixed things, but of processes in motion. Order still exists, he argued, but it comes from tension and balance, not permanence. Two and a half millennia later, physics quietly agrees.

Now, the details…

102 Generations Ago

30 Phil, Chapter 7: Heraclitus and Your Worldview
Chapter 7 in part one transitions from Eastern luminaries to their counterparts in the West. The pre-Socratic philosophers, guided by a new rational perspective, challenged the stronghold of mythology, and propelled human thought onto a trajectory marked by reason. Little is known for sure about Heraclitus. Born around 535 BCE, stories indicated he lived about 60 years.

My Favorite Sayings:

Everything is in Flux.
No man ever steps in the same river twice.

Pictured: Bust of an unknown philosopher. Some believe this might be Heraclitus. This bust is in the Capitoline Museum in Rome, but the museum makes no such identity assumption.

That History Story,

was first published on TST 2 years ago.

By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.

2.

A Philosophy Quote.

Subject: Impermanence.

“Everything is in flux.”

Heraclitus.
500 BCE.

Change is the only form of permanence that exists—first glimpsed by ancient thinkers, and now woven into the fabric of modern science.

To be clear.

Heraclitus’ claim that “everything is in flux” captures a deep truth shared by both metaphysics and classical physics. The world appears stable only because change often happens gradually. Beneath every solid object, fixed identity, and steady law lies continuous motion, transformation, and becoming. What endures is not stillness, but patterned change.

Now, the details…

Around 500 BCE, Heraclitus looked at the world and rejected the comforting idea of permanence. He noticed that rivers flow, fires consume, bodies age, and societies transform. His famous insight—often paraphrased as you cannot step into the same river twice—was not poetic exaggeration. It was a metaphysical claim: reality is not made of static things, but of ongoing processes.

Classical physics eventually echoed this intuition. What looks solid is actually motion at every scale—atoms vibrating, planets orbiting, energy transferring. Even a rock sitting still is not truly still. It is held together by forces in balance, not frozen in time. Stability, in physics, is not the absence of change; it is change arranged in a lasting pattern.

Metaphysically, this challenges how we think about identity. If everything is always changing, what does it mean to be something? Heraclitus’ answer is subtle: identity is not sameness over time, but continuity through change. We persist not because we are unchanged, but because change follows a recognizable path. Flux is not chaos—it is the rule that makes persistence possible at all.

That Philosophy Quote,

was first published on TST 2 months ago.

By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: In physics, what does apparent “stillness” usually represent?

Back: Dynamic equilibrium

3.

A Science FAQ.

Subject: The Expanding Universe.

Will the night sky have stars nearly forever?

Our constellations feel permanent, yet aren’t. The stars themselves, bound together in our galactic neighborhood, will light our night sky for nearly forever.

Now to clarify.

Every star you see at night belongs to the Milky Way — some can see a few of the closest galaxies. All gravitationally bound and unaffected by cosmic expansion. For centuries, humans assumed the night sky was eternal and unchanging. Modern cosmology reveals a subtler truth: while the universe expands, gravity preserves the stars.

Now, the details…

YES! Well, nearly forever. Does that surprise you? Did you think the expanding universe would someday erase the stars from our night sky? Here’s the truth as understood by modern astrophysicists: while the universe is expanding, the stars you see at night, nearly all part of our Milky Way, are gravitationally bound—and always will be.

The constellations change shape at varying rates and the night sky is quite different every 10,000 years or so. So, the shapes we see today were quite different from just 10,000 years ago. But, a night sky full of constellations will always be a part of our future.

And, our galaxy is part of a Local Group of over 50 galaxies, all gravitationally bound together. Just as planets orbit the Sun, the stars, galaxies, and dust within our Local Group are locked together in a cosmic “island.”

How big is this island? Imagine this: both Star Wars and Star Trek take place entirely within a galaxy. Star Trek takes place in the Milky Way, and Star Wars takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Our Local Group of galaxies is an unimaginably vast expanse of space. While trillions of distant galaxies will vanish beyond the cosmic horizon, our Local Group will remain bound together, for at least trillions of years.

Over time, some galaxies will merge. For example, the Milky Way and Andromeda are on a collision course and will one day form a massive galaxy. But this process is so slow that the night sky will change imperceptibly on human timescales. And stars are far apart, they’re unlikely to collide. Instead, their gravitational pull will reshape the stars into a new galaxy.

That Science FAQ,

was first published on TST 1 year ago.

By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: Will the night sky have stars for trillions of years?

Back: Yes, our Local Group of about 50 galaxies is gravitationally bound.

4.

A Philosophy FAQ.

Subject: Existentialism.

What does existence before essence mean?

Existence before essence means you arrive without a script, and your identity emerges through a life in motion: shaped by change, choice, and time.

In short.

The idea of existence before essence is most closely associated with modern existentialism, especially Jean-Paul Sartre. It rejects the notion of a soul or destiny and instead places responsibility on the individual to shape who they become. In contrast, essence before existence claims identity or purpose precedes birth. At its core, this debate lives in metaphysics, asking whether identity is discovered or created, and whether meaning is inherited or earned.

Now, the details…

Simply put, it means that you are born first, you exist as a blank slate with cognitive abilities and instincts, and then you and society mold you into your essence. This is the counter position to the idea of souls. The idea that you exist before and after your time on Earth.

The “Existence Before Essence” position of this debate says that you are born first, you exist as a blank slate with cognitive abilities and instincts, and then you and society mold you into you, into your essence.

The Essence Before Existence position argues that before you are born, your essence—your fundamental nature or purpose—already exists. Whether as a soul, an intrinsic purpose, or a predetermined essence, you are not simply a blank slate upon arrival. Your existence, then, is an unfolding of what was already there, rather than a construction from nothing.

Metaphysics, the branch of philosophy exploring being and reality, investigates what exists and how they exist. You are born a human, you can’t change that, but the essence of you, your identity either evolves as you age or you were born with your identity.

That Philosophy FAQ,

was first published on TST 1 year ago.

By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: What does existence before essence imply?

Back: No Soul, No Afterlife, No Self

5.

Critical thinking almost always boils down to epistemology, and here, that means the Idea of Ideas.

Understanding improves when multiple ideas are compared rather than defended.

A Critical Thinking FAQ.

Subject: Causation versus Correlation.

Is cause and effect certain?

With the motion of life, cause and effect feel certain. We see stable patterns. But Hume challenged this confidence, reminding us that correlation does not guarantee causation.

That takeaway is this.

Reasoning is one of the Five Thought Tools, it demands we question whether we’re seeing real causation, or just a misleading correlation. Always ask: What’s the evidence? Hume said, repeated observation shows habit, not logical necessity.

Now, the details…

We experience the world through patterns—drop a ball, and it falls. Light a fire, and it burns. We think of one thing causing the other as common sense. It’s part of our everyday life. But does that mean cause and effect is certain?

Born in 1711, Scottish philosopher David Hume didn’t think so. He pointed out that just because something always happens in our experience doesn’t mean it must happen. We assume the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has—but that assumption is based on habit, not certainty. Could an unseen factor be driving both? This is the essence of the causation versus correlation debate.

However, Hume was also a pragmatic man and he didn’t debate the rising of the Sun everytime someone mentioned it. He simply challenges us to add doubt where needed. In chapter 27 of 30 Philosophers, I demonstrate this with a simple shift in language. I change the statement “All swans are white,” to “All known swans in Europe are white.” This clearly demonstrates how Hume is asking us to be more nuanced with our language.

Instead of assuming cause and effect as absolute, critical thinkers add nuance by demanding evidence, using logic, and adding appropriate qualifiers. So next time you hear “X causes Y,” pause. Ask as Hume would: Is this a certainty, or just a strong habit of thought?

In the TST Framework, exploring cause and effect falls under Logical Analysis and Evidence-Based Reasoning, challenging assumptions about causation and requiring scrutiny of whether observed patterns indicate certainty or mere correlation. It also ties into the Mind Trap of Assumption, where people mistake repeated events for causal relationships without verifying underlying mechanisms. Good critical thinkers try to add the needed doubt especially with statements of cause and effect.

That Critical Thinking FAQ,

was first published on TST 1 year ago.

By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: A consistent association without proven causal connection.

Back: Correlation

6.

A History FAQ.

Subject: Presocratic Philosophers.

Who were the Presocratic Philosophers?

Language itself is in flux. The Presocratic thinkers lived before philosopher was an identity, in a Greek world where sophist still meant “wise,” not yet the later deceiver.

To be clear.

The presocratic philosophers were the first to perform simple science, observation of nature. Figures like Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Democritus pursued truth through reason and observation. The later sophists, by contrast, focused on persuasive skill.

Now, the details…

The philosophers before Socrates, before 400 BCE, are known as the presocratic philosophers. In 30 Philosophers, the western giant Heraclitus is used in chapter 7 to represent the presocratics. Others are used in the overall telling of the epic story of modern human thought, and they include Thales, Pythagoras, Anaximander, Parmenides, and Democritus. These thinkers laid the foundation for Western philosophy by shifting the focus from mythological explanations of the world to rational inquiry and natural observation.

Heraclitus, often called the “Weeping Philosopher,” took center stage in these early explorations by emphasizing the role of change and flux in the universe. He famously declared, “You cannot step into the same river twice,” highlighting his belief that the only constant is change. Heraclitus viewed the world as a dynamic interplay of opposites, unified by a principle he called the logos, a rational order underlying all things. His ideas challenged thinkers to grapple with the paradox of stability and transformation.

Other presocratic thinkers offered groundbreaking perspectives. Thales, often credited as the first philosopher, proposed that water was the fundamental substance of all things, and he is often credited with the earliest known attempts at scientific experimentation. Anaximander suggested the apeiron, an indefinite or boundless principle, as the source of existence, while Pythagoras combined mathematical precision with mysticism, claiming numbers held the key to understanding reality. Parmenides introduced the concept of being as eternal and unchanging, starkly opposing Heraclitus’s vision of constant flux. Finally, Democritus, known for his atomic theory, envisioned the universe as composed of indivisible particles moving through the void. Together, these thinkers set the stage for Socrates and the classical age of philosophy.

That History FAQ,

was first published on TST 1 year ago.

By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: Why did “sophist” become a pejorative?

Back: Because sophists valued persuasion over truth.

That’s it for this week!

Join us again next week. A new set of ideas lands on TouchstoneTruth Wednesdays at 3 PM PST, and emailed Thursdays.

If you don’t subscribe, please visit TouchstoneTruth.com and click the Subscribe button.

Rather than chasing completeness, each piece aims for clarity at the time it is written.

Thanks for listening.

The end.