I’ve always liked the idea of objects within objects. If one thing is divisible inifinite times, then the smallest element can be divided into infinite pieces as well. No matter how deep you go into the layers, you will never reach the smallest. Thus you are always at the most outer layer, relative to the inner pieces. It can also be interpreted that you are always at the most inner layer, since no matter how much you progress to the outside, you will never reach it.
Position yourself in the universe now. The universe is likely to have no boundaries (let’s assume it doesn’t), and you have infinite molecules. Where do you think you are on the scale from smallest to biggest? Do you think your individual being is closer to the smallest object than it is to the biggest? What’s infinity divided by 2?
If the smallest were the biggest, then that means it is a loop. That scale starts from smallest and approaches biggest, then it becomes smallest again. In other words, everything contains everything else, and that everything else contains everything. It’s just how we interpret it. Since we are on the scale of about 1.7 meters tall, we think trees, bears, and buildings are bigger than us because they seem so. We see other people as about the same height. But really, there is a kid in all of us, who sees things much differently.
Woah, that’s pretty cool. When you mentioned the dividing something by an infinite amount it reminded bme of that one math/physics thing where if something were to approach a wall but only divided the distance to the wall by half every time you’d never reach it making something timeless/infinite.
Still, really cool ideas you’ve got there.
Like Kris this too reminded me of that same theory. General logic however would suggest that everything has a boundary of some sort; a start and a finish, a beginning and an end, in this case a largest or a smallest. There really is no definate answer.
Kris, that’s one of Zeno’s Paradoxes. It’s basically a runner will never outrun a turtle because, like you said, it can be interpreted that the turtle moves forward a bit whenever the runner catches up. Then the runner will eventually never catch up to the turtle.
Steve, you exactly right. Everything has some end, but it’s hard to say which is which sometimes.
… or impossible?
:P heheheh nearly as confusing as my first lessons on the theory of relativity!