- #1
Suppaman
- 128
- 11
- TL;DR Summary
- How is the universe best viewed considering the great difference between smallest and largets things?
Summary: How is the universe best viewed considering the great difference between smallest and largets things?
I am not sure how to phrase this question so forgive me if it is all wrong. I have noticed that science is doing a lot with small, very small things. They also do a lot with big ideas, like planets. The universe seems to have components of all sizes. What is the nominal size of important things? I can go outside at night and see the moon. If I look at my hand in the moonlight, I do not see a cell or the DNA within. If we as humans contemplate only those things, we can see there is a lot of small stuff going uncontemplated. If I write a simple BASIC program I can think about how it works; I can know about the hardware (I do) and think about it all working as a package. Now, if DNA is just software, I am not sure some minds can think about how it works to a degree they could modify it to make any living beast return to the present.
See, I am just trying to see if there is a scale of things that we are not part of, we are too big but a small version of us (an AI?) is not yet available to contemplate things. We can do things on a large scale, make big things, but we do not easily make small things or modify small things. Add an atom here, see what we get. We can do this on a large scale, build a 747 but we are not so good at creating a new one-celled creature from scratch (or did we?)
To get a proper view of the universe, what size should the viewer be? I apologize for rambling on, please put this question in the proper place and if there is no proper place, why not?
I am not sure how to phrase this question so forgive me if it is all wrong. I have noticed that science is doing a lot with small, very small things. They also do a lot with big ideas, like planets. The universe seems to have components of all sizes. What is the nominal size of important things? I can go outside at night and see the moon. If I look at my hand in the moonlight, I do not see a cell or the DNA within. If we as humans contemplate only those things, we can see there is a lot of small stuff going uncontemplated. If I write a simple BASIC program I can think about how it works; I can know about the hardware (I do) and think about it all working as a package. Now, if DNA is just software, I am not sure some minds can think about how it works to a degree they could modify it to make any living beast return to the present.
See, I am just trying to see if there is a scale of things that we are not part of, we are too big but a small version of us (an AI?) is not yet available to contemplate things. We can do things on a large scale, make big things, but we do not easily make small things or modify small things. Add an atom here, see what we get. We can do this on a large scale, build a 747 but we are not so good at creating a new one-celled creature from scratch (or did we?)
To get a proper view of the universe, what size should the viewer be? I apologize for rambling on, please put this question in the proper place and if there is no proper place, why not?