What is scale outside of human perception?
From the human point of view, the universe has a certain scale in comparison to that human perception. Sub-atomic particles are impossibly small, the universe as a whole is impossibly large, streets, streams, trees, plants, animals, buildings, etc. are things about where I can tangibly perceive. What of the world outside the human perspective though? What is the scale of the world from a non-human or a non-animal perspective? The keyboard, the door, the sand, the trees, something about the scale of human perception is what we automatically imagine. However, there is no way to understand the view from nowhere. I equate this with Kant's noumena. It is just unknown.
Comments (36)
Do you think that imagined scale means anything outside our imagined perception?
The smallest is the Plank size, the largest is the size of the universe, and the mid-point is about the size of a cell or a mote of dust.
But that is scale relative to us. What is the scale of anything without anything relative to it. Is there absolute scale?
The lower end of the scale as the Planck size is absolute. A practical high end for stuff is the size just above which would collapse into a black hole.
Yes, but what scale is anything without any subject? You think there is some disembodied human making the scales subsist?
What scale is anything without objects that have scalable properties? I dont get this subject/object distinction. Subjects are objects themselves with scalable properties.
No, they are just natural, although that is exceptional in a Totality that can't have anything outside of it, such as an absolute clock or yardstick, forcing everything to be relative and relational to everything.
That's the point. What is the scale of the universe with no point of view? You only imagine your human perspective of large and small.. not the actual point of view of a plank scale or whole universe or anything else for that matter.
What is the scale of the universe with no point of view? We only know it from the human scale.
Uh, a plank scale doesnt have a perspective. Senses exist on our scale, so perspectives only exist on our scale. That isn't to say that the properties of objects don't exist independent of perspectives.
Why would we perceive what we call "differences and similarities in scale" if the objects don't have some inherent properties that are different or similar?
Well, I see this as an interesting thing to ponder if there is no scale of the universe. If one were to step out of the human or animal perspective the universe takes the perspective of.... Nothing.. fine but you see we are used to human scales of being. Like a physical object that seems to be solid but at a sub-atomic scale is mostly empty. Well, is that not another scale? Or the scale of the whole universe all at once. Is that not a scale? If string theory was true, there is a scale of vibrating strings. These are fathomable in imagination but in reality totally alien. Either way, we are prejudiced with a human type scale. That isn't THE scale or THE ONLY scale.
Like I said, perspectives don't exist independent of some sensory system. You don't need to have a perspective of something for it to exist. You do need a perspective for you to know it exists. Perspectives are a type of knowledge, which sensory information processors possess.
Right, at what level of scale is the universe operating? I can say we are all strings, but we don't operate on the string level. Molecules, atoms, waves, etc. If there is not a universal level of operation, what sense can there be made of a universe in and of itself?
You mention properties. Please give me your theory of properties and maybe we can proceed from there.
We'd have to know if there are other universes, wouldn't we? Scales are comparisons. If there is only one then your question is incoherent.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I asked you how you're defining "perspective" first. In order to proceed, you'd have to answer that question first. It is part of your title and the OP of this thread.
Perspective is the state of the universe without a human perceiving it. In this case the scale.. All strings all the way down.. the whole universe all at once.
I dont understand this definition. A perspective and perceiving seem to be completely unrelated things to you. That isn't how I understand perception at all.
Perception isnt a state of the universe. It is a state of mind - of being aware via the senses.
Properties are defining and inherent parts of some thing.
Ugh, I meant to convey that perspective of the universe without a mind, means what in terms of the scale of the universe? At what scale does the universe subsist? But there is no scale, so "what" is subsisting?
Now you are going to say something about properties. Properties are inherent parts of something. So the parts are what makes the scale? But I thought it was mind.
Covariant quantum fields in no space and no time. That was easy!
And why?
That's all that's left, according to Rovelli, below all that's emergent.
Ah I see what you mean now. But why is that the scale at which the universe subsists and not just a scale that we discovered or theorized as humans?
The emergent scales are not primary.
Why is this scale preferred over the other scales though? I'm not getting the necessary connection between primary and ultimate scale the universe subsists in.
I suppose that primary and ultimate mean the same here.
By reason of coherence, you cannot ask this. What is the scale of anything without scalability? This is nonsense. It's like asking what is the absolute size of something that has no dimension?
I would say that all scales are emergent. The scale of the quark, the electron, the atom, the molecule, the cell, the human and animal, the solar, the galactic the universal. I would say that within the totality of the emergent scales things are larger or smaller than other things.
Your question seems to be 'Is any scale fundamental?' We usually think that if something is constituted by multiples of something else, which are thus necessarily smaller than the something they constitute, then the smaller things are more fundamental. The most fundamental level on that criterion would be the the level of the elementary fermions and bosons.
The Planck Length is considered to be the smallest possible dimension. below the level of the elementary particles, the question of scale would have no meaning.
There can be no perspective without a mind. I defined perspective as an awareness via the senses. If something doesn't have senses, how can it have a perspective? I would also add that in order to have a perspective you need to have some type of memory, like working memory in order to store and process the sensory information. Our perspective resides in our working memory.
I already stated that in order to know what scale the universe is, you'd have to compare it to something else. Scales are comparisons with other things.
Is the question you are asking more like, "Do comparisons (similarities and differences) exist independent of minds?"
Quoting schopenhauer1I really don't want to say any more until we get this definition of "perspective" cleared up.
Ok, in this context, scale is related with a point of view. The point of view of a human has a certain scale to it. We do not observe strings, we do not observe the universe as a whole. We have a human perspective which has its own scalar perception. Step outside of the human perception, what is the scale? Well, we probably just project our own scale onto this non-human world. What is the actual scale of something without the human perceiver?
The view is either a holistic all at once taking in or a close-up linear detailed view. The eye can detect down to a few photons.
I would say that scales are comparisons of properties. The comparison exists in our mind, but the propeties we compare are independent of our minds. With a perspective the world appears located relative to our eyes, but the world is not located relative to the eyes. This is because the senses provide information about the world relative to our bodies.
Right, so what scale do these properties subsist in-itself? Properties subsist, but not scale of these properties, you say. Then what does it mean to say the properties subsist without scale? Just, "it is what it is" sort of thing? That's not really satisfying. Properties aren't minds, so they don't subsist in their "own" scale. We always just "put" the scale in the equation, even when we say it is only something "relative" to a perceiver.
If there are no absolutes, then there is no scale and the universe is fractal or it just pain has no scale but what is relative to itself.