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....

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

Do you think that imagined scale means anything outside our imagined perception?

Sub-atomic particles are impossibly small, the universe as a whole is impossibly large, — schopenhauer1

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?

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.

Nothing in relativity or quantum mechanics indicates that the Planck length (and Planck time) are some kind of limit to the scale of the universe. It is a common misconception that the universe is like a granular field of pixels of Planck dimensions.

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

Yes, but what scale is anything without any subject? You think there is some disembodied human making the scales subsist?

Yes, but what scale is anything without any subject? — 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.

You think there is some disembodied human making the scales subsist? — schopenhauer1

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.

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

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.

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

What is the scale of the universe with no point of view? We only know it from the human scale.

Some things appear bigger than others from particular perspectives even though they are smaller. Some things are simply bigger than others. From the "noumenal point of view" if the existence of things is accepted at all, then they must have some size or other. If the existence of things is not accepted at all, then the question becomes meaningless.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Right, at what level of scale is the universe operating? — schopenhauer1

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

At what scale does the universe subsist? — schopenhauer1

Covariant quantum fields in no space and no time. That was easy!

Covariant quantum fields in no space and no time. That was easy! — PoeticUniverse

And why?

And why? — schopenhauer1

That's all that's left, according to Rovelli, below all that's emergent.

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?

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.

The emergent scales are not primary. — PoeticUniverse

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.

primary and ultimate scale — schopenhauer1

I suppose that primary and ultimate mean the same here.

What is the scale of anything without anything relative to it. Is there absolute scale? — schopenhauer1

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 think now on rereading that you are talking about something other than what I thought you were. And perhaps that explains why you didn't respond to my previous comment.

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.

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

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?"

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

I really don't want to say any more until we get this definition of "perspective" cleared up.