scientists, physicists and philosophers only?

Question

I said:
The scale of our understanding will always remain within the limits of our dimensions.
The paradox about "Big" is when it is too big, you can not see it.

Please develop and argument.

Many have answered, and many had valid points regarding the last part of the problem, this is where we need to spend more time to reflect.

regarding the following point:
"The paradox about "Big" is when it is too big, you can not see it. "

If you were standing on a quark and using energy and scale measurements adapted to you environment, wondering how far is the universe you would probably not be able to see any further than other atoms or maybe molecules.
Having said that we all know that molecules are often part of something way biger which you will never be able to quantify because your fundamental dimensions are not fit for that.

Answer 1

Physics is limited to the dimensions we can measure. Mathematics has no limits. The difficulty is that too many scientists (and philosophers) have a limited understanding of mathematics.

Answer 2

Very ambiguous question, you do not make it clear which stand-point you are coming from. Ergo, I see two answers for this question.

1) Considering the physical dimensions to be those you talk of, then the answer is no. We already have understanding outside of the physical dimensions. For example gravity and electromagnetism, these have been conjectured by some theories being effects of further dimensions on the 4 in which we have awareness. So therefore we have knowledge outside of the dimensions.

2) If you are talking philsophically about the dimensions that we might consider and find information about, then yes, as every piece of knowledge must fall within some dimension. This given that dimension is a generic term with many meaning and simply an indicator of a division and seperation of the laws (physical and otherwise).

Finally the last part of your question does not make sense, there is no paradox in "big", size has no relevance whatsoever in terms of visibility. Therefore there cannot be a paradox because visibilty does not have to increase when size does. For example, you can see an ant clearly, the windscreen on my car you cannot see although it is bigger than the ant, and the car, even bigger again, you can see. Of course, if we include distance and only change the size we get a different result.

Please clarify your point if you would like a definitive answer.

Answer 3

Your first statement seems logical - the scale of our understanding (or do you mean our understanding of scale?) is limited (and biased to some extent) by the sizes of things we can measure, the sizes of things we can model with mathematics, and the sizes of things we can imagine.

However, there's a difference between "being so big that we can't detect it" and "existing in another dimension."

Answer 4

Imagine if you will that the Sun is actually in your back yard. For the purposes of this exercise, it's NOT hot. It does, however retain its enormous size. Whilst it is quite clearly visible, it osbcures a) its entirety and b) the rest of everything else from your view; all you can now actually see is the segment of the sun which covers your back yard.

The detail has gone - ergo it is so big you cannot see it!

Answer 5

Size is not a factor in our ability to understand things. Any child can understand a planetary orbit and an electron orbit as being similar.

However, people get confused when confronted with phenomena (of any size) that defy their own experience.

Answer 6

the same could be applied to "small", and is why quantum mechanics (not to mention the very idea of atoms) was resisted by many physicists for so long

we can easily accept things that we can visualise. Everything else is a challenge.

Answer 7

2 is the ultimate number every thing is 2 big 2 small 2 long 2 short 2 light 2 dark 2 high 2 low 2 hot 2 cold and so on and so on.

Answer 8

Thats our government for ya!

Answer 9

kk bye

Answer 10

When you can spell your own name right, I'm there.