An alternative to size is complexity. What counts as the most complex thing in a generally very simple Universe?

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!

Also, on the scale from the Planck length to the observable universe, a “medium-sized” thing is about the size of a large cell, like neuron. So comparatively, on the whole, an individual human is enormous, and our planet-spanning civilization even bigger still.

Size/complexity/power matters under the burden of a competition. But if we're all working together, then I'd say a reflection on significance is somewhat insignificant (or sentimental).

What if the Mormons get a monopoly on space travel... "He who controls the spice controls the universe."

I suppose it depends on what you mean by significant. If you think spatial size is significant, then I suppose we are insignificant in comparison to everything else in existence. Of course, most anything else would be as well.

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.

So comparatively, on the whole, an individual human is enormous, and our planet-spanning civilization even bigger still. — Pfhorrest

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.

Thanks for the replies, but to clarify I guess I was interested in the feeling of insignificance. Often it seems that when people realize how much bigger space is than us, and how much could be out there, they feel insignificant. Then you get statements like “we’re just tiny beings inhabiting a rock...etc.” followed up by statements that our lives don’t matter, or that our lives are insignificant. To me, this implies that in our search for meaning we consider size to be meaningful; that size somehow gives meaning to an object or life form.

Size seem to be relative, one prefers big, other small.

But should we have a preference at all? If our galaxy was all that existed, should we feel more significant than we do now?

I think evolution prefers small beings, because more small you are the less resources you need to be able to perform your nature at best.

Knowledge of our universe is related to how powerful/big our telescopes are, to gather evidence.

Our feeling of insignificance may arise from our feeling of superiority; I think they go hand in hand. When a kid sees a small ant and realizes he can kill it because he is larger and more powerful, the thought that the ant for being smaller is weaker must also be present. The thought that the ant is less complex because it is weaker and smaller comes later in life, I think, when we are taught about complexity and the notion that things which seem more complex are more significant/important/essential. I think we think that with complexity comes significance. Thus, that which seems to be more complex, is at the same time larger and stronger, and more significant. However, all complexity there is has evolved for the same amount of time. In a sense, we are as old as all other things in the universe.

Nor are those sightless stars a whit more wise,
Impotent silver dots upon the dice
⁠The lords of heaven each night and morning throw,
In some tremendous hazard of the skies.

Omar Khayyam

Size does not exist outside of the consciousness doing the comparison. In the case of human consciousness, that which is bigger then the body is big and smaller then the body, small. However, if it were possible to have consciousness without a physical body, what would that consciousness use to compare size with? Without limits on how large or small one may go, an entire universe could be found within a grain of sand on the beach or all the know galaxies in the universe could simply be neurones inside the skull of some cosmic beings head.

Humans, being natural beings, feel 'insignificant' because the natural systems within which we are imbedded-nested and together live out our entire lives do not need 'significance' in order to function (i.e. autopoesis, conatus); and also because we are not gods – therefore, just "useless passions" (Sartre). This problem, Zapffe, would say is a by-product of our over-developed (BIG) brains, so in this sense "size does matter" in an adverse – self-immiserating – way: our expectations are mismatched with existence.

But does size even determine significance? — Pinprick

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.

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. — Pinprick

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.

it’s not the size that matters but what you do with it - civilisation cerca 12,000 BC

Humans, being natural beings, feel 'insignificant' because the natural systems within which we are embedded-nested and together live out our entire lives do not need 'significance' in order to function — 180 Proof

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.

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? — Pinprick

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.

Are you saying we feel insignificant because the universe doesn’t need us? — Pinprick

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.'

That’s understandable, but how does that relate to size?

Well, the feeling of insignificance seems strongly correlated to the perception of being small.

Do people simply mistakenly take our relatively small size in comparison with the universe for the cause of our feelings of insignificance?

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.

'A physicist is an atom's way of looking at itself' ~ Neils Bohr.

'A physicist is an atom's way of looking at itself' ~ Niels Bohr — Wayfarer

I suppose John Wheeler would agree.

I was going to mention this....

Very much so yes. Tiny people want tiny things, while greater persons wish for far greater things. Mind over matter. What is small and what is great does not always correlate in physical size or appeal for attention and admiration, especially these days.

Would we suddenly become significant if we spread to other planets throughout several galaxies? — Pinprick

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.

:up:

It's curious isn't it? — Tom Storm

Yes it is. I always seem to be fascinated by how we humans are capable of reaching different conclusions based on the same data.