Well...in general, we comprehend what is outside our perceptual scale via intellectual intuition. Consider the apparent retrograde motion of the planets. If you study a model of the solar system closely (especially a dynamic one), then imagine yourself on earth and looking at Mars, for example, suddenly the retrograde motion becomes evident for what it is, a larger slower orbit around a common gravitational centre. So you could say that knowledge is the lens whereby we see the really small and the really big.... — Pantagruel
Sub-atomic particles are impossibly small, the universe as a whole is impossibly large, — schopenhauer1
But that is scale relative to us. What is the scale of anything without anything relative to it. Is there absolute scale? — schopenhauer1
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. — PoeticUniverse
What scale is anything without objects that have scalable properties? I dont get this subject/object distinction. Subjects are objects themselves with scalable properties.Yes, but what scale is anything without any subject? — schopenhauer1
You think there is some disembodied human making the scales subsist? — schopenhauer1
What scale is anything without objects that have scalable properties? I dont get this subject/object distinction. Subjects are objects themselves with scalable properties. — Harry Hindu
No, they are just natural, although that is exceptional in a Totality that can't have anything outside of it, such as an absolute time or yardstick, forcing everything to be relative and relational to everything. — PoeticUniverse
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.not the actual point of view of a plank scale or whole universe or anything else for that matter — schopenhauer1
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? — Harry Hindu
Are you saying the universe doesnt exist, or has no properties (which is the same as saying that it doesn't exist), independent of our perspective? How are you defining "perspective"?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. — schopenhauer1
Are you saying the universe doesnt exist, or has no properties (which is the same as saying that it doesn't exist), independent of our perspective? How are you defining "perspective"?
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. — Harry Hindu
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.Right, at what level of scale is the universe operating? — 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.You mention properties. Please give me your theory of properties and maybe we can proceed from there. — 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. — Harry Hindu
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.Perspective is the state of the universe without a human perceiving it. — schopenhauer1
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. — Harry Hindu
At what scale does the universe subsist? — schopenhauer1
Covariant quantum fields in no space and no time. That was easy! — PoeticUniverse
And why? — schopenhauer1
That's all that's left, according to Rovelli, below all that's emergent. — PoeticUniverse
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? — schopenhauer1
The emergent scales are not primary. — PoeticUniverse
primary and ultimate scale — schopenhauer1
What is the scale of anything without anything relative to it. Is there absolute scale? — schopenhauer1
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.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? — schopenhauer1
I really don't want to say any more until we get this definition of "perspective" cleared up.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. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.