3 hours ago
I'm having my crazy doubts. After reading a few articles about the fragility of distance as an objective property of physical space based on the observed demonstrations of relativity, the malleable nature of spacetime, and quantum entanglement, I stumbled on this interesting observation. It raises I think a profound issue about the perspectival nature of size and scale and so necessarily of distance as well.
"I'm not familiar with the format of the forum, but could someone straighten me out on a question about distance and as to whether or not distance is only an illusion? How is it that the human body and the immediate physical world JUST HAPPENS TO BE on a scale of size that is so close to what we consider zero length, when you can look out a universe with apparently no end. That is, a 6 feet tall man is only 6 feet larger than zero length. A man can put his two index fngers together and say "that's zero length", but he can't even fathom the distance to the nearest star. So, is zero length even attainable, after all, it is infinitely small. If a human were the size of the apparent size of an electron ( 2 x 10 -15 meters) then 6 feet distance would be(if may calculations are correct) about 1/4 light year away. So for an electron at our toes, the top of our head would be 1/4 light year away. So the human body is huge compared to an observer on an electron. I think our perspective of the world around us is only a point in space afterall. This is more philosophical than hard science obviously. To summarize, how does the size of a human JUST HAPPEN to be so close to one end of the distance "yardstick" (6 feet from zero) and so seemingly infinitely far from the other end of the distance "yardstick". Is our seeming proximity to zero length only an illusion or are we situated somehere within the scale which goes from the infinitely large to the infinitely small, neither of which are obtainable."
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is...ve.814422/
Here's my own meditation on the non-real nature of length or distance I composed a few days ago.
"Why my ruler has no measurable length..
I asked someone today how long my ruler is. He said it is a foot. Then I asked him how long a foot is. And he said it's however long your ruler is. I was dumbfounded. It amounts to saying that my ruler is the sole measurement of its own length, meaning it has no measurable length in itself. It is essentially saying of the ruler that it is as long as it is long, which is basically saying nothing at all.
It got me to thinking what length even is? Which is nothing real at all. Just a magnitude..an amount..a quantity. A mere abstraction designed to quantify real things like space and matter. Real things that are NOT abstractions or numbers at all. When I measure the length of my arm, is that a quality of my arm? Does it exist anywhere objectively outside of the act of measuring it? Does it tell me anything true about my arm at all? No..it only tells me how many inches it is, inches found nowhere at all on my arm. Those inches are only standardized units of measurement of longer standardized units of measurement. Divisible or summable lengths on an abstract line called length existing nowhere at all save in a geometric schematic in the minds of agreeing humans. The illusion is thus created of matter and space being quantifiable and measurable in themselves, when in fact what is being quantified or counted is just an arbitrary and infinitely divisible line existing nowhere physically at all."
This is to not even mention the facile assumption that there is even such a thing as absolute space with its own objectively located and fixed points and lines and planes and intervals. Like if we removed all the matter from the universe it would even still have locations or distances or volumes or scales. Indeed, is distance even possible between two moving objects moving at the same speed on the same trajectory? How if distance is supposed to be a fixed and objective measurement between two fixed and objective points supposedly existing in empty space?
Thus the assumption of distance is only ever a measurement of an abstraction called a straight line between two other abstractions called points designating fixed invariant locations supposedly existing in empty space. We are in essence not measuring anything real or objective. Only the hypothetical number of agreed upon standardized units that fallaciously quantify the innately unquantifiable emptiness we call space. How can you possibly measure something that isn't even there? Indeed, is a straight line even possible in a curved spacetime?
"I'm not familiar with the format of the forum, but could someone straighten me out on a question about distance and as to whether or not distance is only an illusion? How is it that the human body and the immediate physical world JUST HAPPENS TO BE on a scale of size that is so close to what we consider zero length, when you can look out a universe with apparently no end. That is, a 6 feet tall man is only 6 feet larger than zero length. A man can put his two index fngers together and say "that's zero length", but he can't even fathom the distance to the nearest star. So, is zero length even attainable, after all, it is infinitely small. If a human were the size of the apparent size of an electron ( 2 x 10 -15 meters) then 6 feet distance would be(if may calculations are correct) about 1/4 light year away. So for an electron at our toes, the top of our head would be 1/4 light year away. So the human body is huge compared to an observer on an electron. I think our perspective of the world around us is only a point in space afterall. This is more philosophical than hard science obviously. To summarize, how does the size of a human JUST HAPPEN to be so close to one end of the distance "yardstick" (6 feet from zero) and so seemingly infinitely far from the other end of the distance "yardstick". Is our seeming proximity to zero length only an illusion or are we situated somehere within the scale which goes from the infinitely large to the infinitely small, neither of which are obtainable."
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is...ve.814422/
Here's my own meditation on the non-real nature of length or distance I composed a few days ago.
"Why my ruler has no measurable length..
I asked someone today how long my ruler is. He said it is a foot. Then I asked him how long a foot is. And he said it's however long your ruler is. I was dumbfounded. It amounts to saying that my ruler is the sole measurement of its own length, meaning it has no measurable length in itself. It is essentially saying of the ruler that it is as long as it is long, which is basically saying nothing at all.
It got me to thinking what length even is? Which is nothing real at all. Just a magnitude..an amount..a quantity. A mere abstraction designed to quantify real things like space and matter. Real things that are NOT abstractions or numbers at all. When I measure the length of my arm, is that a quality of my arm? Does it exist anywhere objectively outside of the act of measuring it? Does it tell me anything true about my arm at all? No..it only tells me how many inches it is, inches found nowhere at all on my arm. Those inches are only standardized units of measurement of longer standardized units of measurement. Divisible or summable lengths on an abstract line called length existing nowhere at all save in a geometric schematic in the minds of agreeing humans. The illusion is thus created of matter and space being quantifiable and measurable in themselves, when in fact what is being quantified or counted is just an arbitrary and infinitely divisible line existing nowhere physically at all."
This is to not even mention the facile assumption that there is even such a thing as absolute space with its own objectively located and fixed points and lines and planes and intervals. Like if we removed all the matter from the universe it would even still have locations or distances or volumes or scales. Indeed, is distance even possible between two moving objects moving at the same speed on the same trajectory? How if distance is supposed to be a fixed and objective measurement between two fixed and objective points supposedly existing in empty space?
Thus the assumption of distance is only ever a measurement of an abstraction called a straight line between two other abstractions called points designating fixed invariant locations supposedly existing in empty space. We are in essence not measuring anything real or objective. Only the hypothetical number of agreed upon standardized units that fallaciously quantify the innately unquantifiable emptiness we call space. How can you possibly measure something that isn't even there? Indeed, is a straight line even possible in a curved spacetime?