Did you ever sit and think?

[Chris]

I did once and it lead to my mind doing all sorts of weird things.

I started thinking about what would happen if we found the smallest thing, this got me very confused but yet made so much sense. So here were my thoughts.

What would happen if I found the smallest thing. It would have to be near nonexistent relative to stuff we consider to be nonexistent.

Now did you ever sit and wonder if there was anything smaller again. That would have to be null, however just because it has a value of null it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it's defined as null, so it does exist. Now what happens if we found something smaller again. We're into negative which also has to exist because it is also defined. So what would happen if we got to the end of infinity negative? Does it turn positive again? And what happens if we got to infinity positive? Does it turn negative? For some reason that would make more sense than actual infinity does, so now I can finally understand infinity. There must be two factors. Positive and Negative.

We now have infinity running its eternal loop lets try imagine what it could look like. It's a wave of some sort, in our brains we could imagine it as the 2d wave length we would draw on a piece of paper.
An actual wave with a near infinity top and a near infinity bottom heading in two directions forcing them into what would seem to be one, the direction of time.
Where the top hits the edge of infinity we have a boundary, where the bottom hits the edge another, and dead in the middle where the null is, another.
As the wave passes through all the positive and negative in the direction of time it is going in, matter is defined between the dimensions. This matter is then forced along by the direction of time. As the time moves the matter along to its next stage, the matter has no control over what it's going to become, the lower range have no problem being replaced by new matter, until the matter in between its dimensions gets so big and complex that conflicts start to emerge to define what it has to become next.
This continues until the direction of time reaches its near infinity at both ends and its boundary creates another dimension. The direction of time is now its own wave going back through the opposite state it once was, just to reach what it was before. However the boundary it has reached forces it into a new directions at either end, we now have two infinitive time direction states, two heading in the positive direction and two in the negative, both with three dimensions and both with positive and negative matter. These two again reach their boundary at both ends, forced into another direction only this time there are 4 directions. These directions have now become complex enough for two of them to collide. As the negative and positive ends of the directions of the pairs meet each other, the positive and negative waves and matter cancel each other out, leaving no need for an existence of a dimension in the middle. Null is formed in the middle, however four directions are left seeming to be two. Until they again make four which will cancel each other into two again.

This is an eternal loop.

[Jackolantern]

There are definitely a few leaps of faith in there, but some interesting thoughts nonetheless. One leap of faith that jumps out is the idea that something is smaller than the smallest thing, has a value of null, and still exists. In our current scientific understanding, only things that at the very least exert some kind of interaction on the universe exist, and oftentimes those things have to have matter or energy, although there may be some exceptions.

On a somewhat related note, it is interesting you mention time travel in your signature, because I was just telling someone the other day about it. Here in Houston, we have a very large negative gravity anomaly that is detectable with even non-digital equipment. That means that, on a very micro scale, time is moving faster for us than in many other areas of the country. Of course, we are probably talking about a few Planck Times per day, which would be in the area of a couple quattuordecillionths of a second per day and would be completely undetectable with modern technology. But moving far away from the planet, time moves much faster. The astronauts who went to the moon actually experienced time travel that could be detected! That means, if you really think about it, the reality they came back to on Earth was not technically the same Earth they left! When they came back to Earth, they were in a different time dimension. I believe it was along the order of a couple microseconds difference, but really anything is enough to say that you have time traveled, and are not technically watching the same flow of events through time that you were a part of when you left. Mind blowing stuff!

[Chris]

Wow this actually makes sense. Three boundaries. One of them can be crossed, or can it? That's the void in the middle. However the boundaries of infinity of both positive to negative and negative to positive cannot. Maybe this will help explain it

If we were to go step over from -1 to 1 we cross the null in the middle, the 0. However because infinity cannot be crossed, we reach a limit, so 8 doesn't actually cross over, it would have to be forced back.

Now to explain what happens to the crossover at infinity, it would have to either become less again, which would make all of this wrong. However in this case 8 must hit its boundary and must be turned into -8. Which would then make sense because depending on the direction time it's moving in the increment or decrement. So say it was going in the positive direction from 0 to 8 would be positively incrementing and going from -8 to 0 would also be incrementing.

So 0 is also a boundary. Meaning there is null/boundary /dimension on the top, middle and bottom.

[Callan S.]

I'm inclined to think time doesn't exist. Only movement.

Think about it - if I stand at the start of a corridor, then I go stand at the end of a corridor, then I come and stand at the start, would you say I've gone backwards in time? Hardly.

What we call time is more like someone elses position of objects. Think of a grid of boxes with tenis balls in some. In one box, there's a tennis ball - in the next column of boxes, another tennis ball but up one row or down one row. Is that time? No, it's just positions. So that's how you can have time not existing. What appears to be time is simply a fourth dimension of already, simulaniously existant matter (as much as, in my grid, one column exists at the same time as the other column exists).

Mind you, the rendering of the grid and where the tennisballs were laid out, that process...You can both say time exists and time does not exist, because either you can take it that things are prerendered, or that you are at the very moment of the universe being rendered and what is ahead can only be known by the finishing of that rendering.

There, my tin foil hat is bigger than yours!

[Chris]

@jack

First things first, if something has a definitive how can it not exist, it has been defined. 0/null/a void has been defined to be 0/null/a void. So it exists, and there's no way of saying it doesn't. It's 0/null/a void.

Second things second, you're thinking of the definition of time travel by the "speed" it moves at or we could move through it relative to the "speed" it would take someone or something else to move through it, and when put into a slower or faster circumstance, time experience would have changed. I see that as seemingly speeding up or slowing down time. I don't really see that as time travel. If you were to see time as something like a type of speed, you could then nearly get the same effect from freezing yourself for a couple of years, because the (watch my wording here) time it has taken time to become the time it is relative to where you are will also seem quite short, while others will have experienced those years. Don't get me wrong shutting down of the mind is not actual speeding up of time, as time moves slower at a large cluster of matter like a black hole than it would be actual slowing down of time.

I see time as an actual progress. Not the rate at which it moves. And while placing ourselves into a different progression of time is impossible. We are progressing with time, meaning we are traveling through and with time. Making it possible.

[Jackolantern]

@ Callen:

I really don't get any of your analogies. Time has nothing to do with position, direction, etc. Time is only the ability for state to change. Can you give some more info to explain your analogies that deal with position rather than ability to change state?

@ Chris:

Just because something is defined does not mean it exists. Concepts are defined, but they do no exist in the traditional way we think about existing. Does the concept of Halloween exist in the same way that my body exists? Of course not. You can pick up a fork and stab me, but you cannot stab the concept of Halloween. The idea of "null" is that nothing exists. So saying something with a value of null exists is paradoxical. It is a philosophical discussion as to whether intangible things exist or are "real", not a scientific discussion, as science unequivocally says no.

[Chris]

Just because something is defined does not mean it exists. Concepts are defined, but they do no exist in the traditional way we think about existing. Does the concept of Halloween exist in the same way that my body exists? Of course not. You can pick up a fork and stab me, but you cannot stab the concept of Halloween. The idea of "null" is that nothing exists. So saying something with a value of null exists is paradoxical. It is a philosophical discussion as to whether intangible things exist or are "real", not a scientific discussion, as science unequivocally says no.

The concept of Halloween exists in a different state, you exist in a state of matter, and a state of matter can be altered by a state of matter, where as Halloween exists as a state of concept, meaning it can be altered by another state of concept. I might not be able to shove a fork up Halloweens ass, but I sure as hell can define it the concept of being crap. I'm going to make a youtube video to help explain this better. You could be right and maybe my theory here is a load of balls, but don't forget how science works. Theories are simply accepted, until they have been proven wrong.

The only difference is the matter had to be there to make the concept. But it exists none the less. The concept exists in my brain as matter.

[Jackolantern]

don't forget how science works. Theories are simply accepted, until they have been proven wrong.

Well, actually they are not accepted until repeated failure to prove them wrong I can say my theory is that there is an intelligent race of Hamburglars on Kepler-19c, but just because you can't prove it wrong doesn't mean it needs to be accepted!

Of course if you mean the scientific word "theory", which means a set of laws proven through rigorous testing, then you would be right (an example being "the theory of relativity"). But most of what we are talking about here is not considered a theory by modern science outside of the bit I mentioned about gravity and time anomalies earlier, which is an excepted theory of science right now.

And as far as science is concerned, concepts don't exist. Philosophy discusses that much more than science, with some philosophers of note being Rene Descartes and Bertrand Russell. I would suggest checking out some of their material if you have interest in the topic (particularly Russell, as Descartes took more of a theological view on it). But in science, if something has no matter and/or no energy, it doesn't exist. Therefore, a concept or a null object has no relation and no importance to the smallest thing that exists, if such a thing exists itself.

[Chris]

I've watched near endless documentaries on this stuff and after a while started seeing where some of the theories themselves started going wrong.

What might help make more sense with what I am thinking up here. You would say that a void is a thing that is empty and contains nothing. That nothing has a value, the value of being there as nothing. For some people seeing is believing, so to help explain. If I were now to look at this void and see that it contains nothing, I could say that there is nothing in it. But I would not be able to say that, unless I could actually see that nothing is there.

The bigger question we should be asking then is, where is this void? And that's when the problems start. The void is there, we are looking at it, so it exists, but where and how. Well here's the answer. It exists because it has been defined. It has been defined by us while we are looking at it. We are seeing it and giving at a definition of being a void, and defining that what is inside it is nothing, its position is somewhere in front, relative to where we are.

Another example which is probably more confusing is something I could not even write about now. But yet I am. So that that doesn't exist still actually does. I just wrote about it. And I would not be able to say I just wrote about it, if it was not there.

I know this is really confusing, I'm nearly sure though that it will grow on you. Just read it a few times or try to prove it wrong.

[Jackolantern]

It isn't a problem at all with me understanding it I understand it completely, and in fact, this exact conversation is something I studied in philosophy some time back! It is not that I don't understand, but rather, I am disagreeing at the harshest, or categorically redefining at the lightest lol.

The issue is that you are discussing a philosophical idea. When you give the example of a void, science sees that simply. In a perfect void, nothing exists within its boundaries (its boundaries are made up of matter, therefore the boundary is exclusive). As far as science is concerned, the void itself is nothing but a delimitation created by your mind to assist in spatial organization. It is a concept, not an object. It could conceivably be considered that the space inside the void, the free liberation of matter or energy to claim position relative to and restricted by its boundaries, could be quantified as an existent object, but since science does not wholly agree or understand what space is, for now, that is on the shelf and the void itself is nothing. Just because it has a name and we can talk about it doesn't mean it exists. I can discuss and talk about Space Glorbs! They are over 20 feet tall and their hair is made of cotton candy. But that doesn't mean it exists!

I hope you can see the fundamental difference here, not in subject matter, but in definition! You are speaking of existing in philosophical terms, where things such as definition or attention can equal existence, whereas I am speaking in scientific terms, where existing means having mass and/or energy.