Does Size Matter?
I’ve observed that when people point out the fact of our insignificance, our relatively small size and that of our planet when compared to the size of the multi/universe is often offered as evidence of this. But does size even determine significance? Would we suddenly become significant if we spread to other planets throughout several galaxies?
Comments (42)
Pound for pound, centimetre for centimetre, even second for second, the human brain probably wins that cosmic contest. Trillions of synapses in precise microsecond coordination, packed into a 1200 cc volume.
So we rule!
What if the Mormons get a monopoly on space travel... "He who controls the spice controls the universe."
I think I'm fairly significant to myself. I have to deal with all of my feelings and experiences. There is no greater impact on myself, then that, so I would say its the most significant thing. Me. Maybe not to others, but others don't have to deal with me 24-7 do they?
Perhaps what people mean is your significance in impressing your will outside of yourself. As if what you do will echo without time and be recognized by society, or God, or something else besides yourself. Yes, you are insignificant in the grand scheme of things there. I feel these statements are from people who want social recognition, or have a fantasy of changing the world, but have been unable to obtain this to a satisfying degree. Saying, "None of it matters anyway" is almost like a coping mechanism. I could be wrong, but that's my experience with such people.
Interestingly, we - as complexity - arise bang in the middle of the spatiotemporal story of the Cosmos.
Looking down, it is 33 orders of magnitude to reach the Planckscale. Looking up, it is 28 orders of magnitude to reach the edge of the visible Universe - the event horizon which bounds our existence.
So - as brains - not exactly in the middle of space and time. But close. And closer still if we are a planet-spanning civilisation as you say.
Every thing which exists is significant; otherwise, it would not exist.
I am already significant.
As far as we can tell, the human mind is the most evolved, complex entity in the universe thus far. That is what matters. Most of the rest of the universe is a desert, probably populated with remote islands of life.
Knowledge of our universe is related to how powerful/big our telescopes are, to gather evidence.
Impotent silver dots upon the dice
?The lords of heaven each night and morning throw,
In some tremendous hazard of the skies.
Omar Khayyam
A good question! The general perception seems to be that bigger is better. I have no clue as to the origin of this belief but I suppose its an evolutionary relic which still has some relevance in this day and age.
However, I remember reading a short story in a comic book when I was around 12ish. There's this pond of fish of all sizes and the biggest ones are the terror, bullying all the smaller ones. One day a fisherman comes to the pond and casts his net. The rest of the tale seems obvious but I'll tell it pro forma. The big fish get caught but the smaller ones slip through the spaces in the net. Bigger, in this case, definitely isn't better.
It has been my observation that people say this when they don't want to get involved in the conversation, or when they try to present a problem as smaller than it is. "Yes, sure, you have a very bad toothache and you need to go the the dentist, but you don't have the money for it. But hey, human problems are insignificant in this vast universe!"
I have to admit, I giggled at the title of the thread.
On a serious note, "significance" in relation to what? Who, outside our selves can measure or establish how significant we are in the universe?
I mean, when you look out at the night sky with a telescope, that's amazing stuff to see. But it's also our representation of it. In a sense, we create the universe we see to a large extent.
How far this goes, is hard to say. Do we make stars as Goodman suggests or are they already their?
It's a good question. But merely looking out at everything, is pretty astonishing and significant, irrespective of size.
Are you saying we feel insignificant because the universe doesn’t need us? That’s understandable, but how does that relate to size? Do people simply mistakenly take our relatively small size in comparison with the universe for the cause of our feelings of insignificance?
Personally, I think it has more to do with the perceived absence of life in the universe. As amazing and beautiful as the cosmos is with its complexity, we can’t help but realize that the universe doesn’t even notice us. So it seems the extinction of life would be an inconsequential event, because there is no one/thing to miss us. If I’m correct, then I think the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe could have a profound impact on our feelings of insignificance.
It's curious isn't it? The argument is also put the other way around by some apologists. Our tiny little precious pocket of intelligent life in an otherwise vast and (apparently) life free realm suggests we are unique and therefore 'created' for significance. I don't think it matters either way and can't see why it would, except as an amplification of human anxieties. But let's face it, either view is based on an incomplete understanding of reality.
No. I'm saying 'nature inherently lacks significance, therefore natural creatures inherently lack significance, and human beings are cognizant of this lack in so far as we feel insignificant.'
Well, the feeling of insignificance seems strongly correlated to the perception of being small.
Given that the observable universe is over 36 orders of magnitude larger than the Earth, I think so. Both our perceived relative smallness and the inherent lack of significance in nature seem to reinforce this feeling.
I suppose John Wheeler would agree.
NO. We are confined to this doomed planet out of compassion. The only place left where the existence of human life and the suffering we deal and tolerate is tolerable due to the fact God doesn't pay much attention here. Most of these will not like it if that was different. Well, not for long anyway. Few would remain if so. We wouldn't survive for long anywhere else. "Earth", as those before us who actually valued wisdom as currency, so desperately and idealistically wished to call this place.. is the sole cosmic "blind spot" in the Universe. The veil is wearing thin I fear. Though.. evil people create the equivalent of ozone when killed. Do the math.
Yes it is. I always seem to be fascinated by how we humans are capable of reaching different conclusions based on the same data.
Oh, ok. That’s interesting, because people usually have no problem ascribing significance to nature, although none exists. I think the fact that the naturalistic fallacy (and it’s relatives) even exist demonstrates that. We tend to value whatever is natural.
Why do you seem so sure? IF we had the ability to spread to other planets, we probably wouldn’t feel like our species is doomed to extinction. I think having the ability to realistically hope for a better tomorrow, if not for ourselves, then for others, would certainly lessen our feelings of insignificance.
Quoting Outlander
Care to explain? Compassion for whom?
Quoting Outlander
This is rhetoric right? Or do you believe there is a God that simply ignores us? Either way, I don’t see how being ignored by God makes life tolerable.
Alcohol. However onto the next point of having a greater ability to create life in multiple places.. well, I'm reminded of an old saying "if you can't make yourself happy, how can you expect to (or why should others believe you can) make others happy" or perhaps even "home is where the heart is" or even as far as something along the lines of (I can't recall any catchy metaphor or witty saying at present) failing to address a problem from it's source is not solved by simply creating more environments where the same problem simply has more chances or opportunity to somehow resolve itself on its own simply because it does not have any more chances here nor there. You can't kick the can down the road per se however I suppose your premise is proven at least somewhat by use of decoys and body doubles. Like how presidents often travel in one of two airliners or vehicles traveling in unison. Beyond all that however, how is life of a species on another planet even in an entirely different galaxy any more hope other than trivial hope? We can just as easily be destroyed by a black hole, cosmic ray burst, star explosion/implosion, asteroid, heat death of the universe, or any other cosmic phenomena one could imagine. Furthermore, if one errs on the side of evolution, life will just re-create itself, perhaps even better here, so why worry about it so much? Selfishness. Myopia. Fear. Arrogance. Ignorance. That is all that will be "spread" throughout the universe if your maniacal plot of galactic domination ever comes to fruition.
Quoting Pinprick
Just a theory. Highly religious. "Fallen world", etc
Quoting Pinprick
Could be. I wouldn't know for certain. It's not about it being tolerable, it's about it simply being able to continue to exist. Again, just a theory.
[quote=Wikipedia]Shifting their morphology plays a key role in their survival, creating bulkier bodies when put into environments where more developed tadpoles were present, to make it difficult for the individuals to swallow them whole.[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]Size-structured cannibalism is cannibalism in which older, larger, more mature individuals consume smaller, younger conspecifics.[/quote]
I guess the takeaway is it (size) matters
Then again,
[quote=Anon]Big things come in small packages.[/quote]
and
I don't know how far this is true but it's said that the world's biggest killer is the humble mosquito.
[quote=Google]The most deadly animal in the world is the mosquito. It might seem impossible that something so miniscule can kill so many people, but it's true. According to the World Health Organization, mosquito bites result in the deaths of more than 1 million people every year. The majority of these deaths are due to malaria.[/quote]
We give it significance, and that’s significant. It ought not to be discounted. Somehow, the meaningless universe gives rise to creatures who impart significance.
Lol, ok.
Quoting Outlander
What is its source? For me, part of the cause (source) of feelings of insignificance is knowing that no matter what we do we can’t win the game of life. One way or another we will all die. So in the end any good I may be able to cause is inconsequential. Having this thought in one’s head makes life seem pointless. But, what if it wasn’t an absolute given that we will all die? What if the possibility that we, as a species, could exist indefinitely?
Quoting Outlander
It’s more hopeful because even if the worst does occur (like one of the doomsday scenarios you mention) it doesn’t necessarily mean extinction. What destroys one planet, may not affect another. I think for a multi-planetary species, these events would be comparable to the various natural disasters we face now. They’re tragic, but capable of being overcome. And evolution couldn’t recreate life if the planet was destroyed. That seems beside the point anyway. We don’t, at least I don’t think we do, feel significant because other species exist.
Quoting Outlander
Well, we’re certainly an ego driven species, so yes those things will still exist and be spread throughout the cosmos, but perhaps we will feel at least a lot bit more significant in the grand scheme of things.
Little drops of water,
Little grains of sand,
Make the mighty ocean
And the pleasant land,
So the little minutes,
Humble though they be,
Make the mighty ages
Of eternity[/quote]
Sure, we don’t care about the physical size of a virus, but rather the size of its impact. And I appreciate that you don’t feel insignificant personally, but there are many of us who do. However, since size is irrelevant, as you claim, then how would you explain the explanation many people who feel insignificant give as justification for their feelings? Namely that we are an insignificant species at least partly because the cosmos is so much bigger than us?