Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum The meaning of life

I hear that there is going to be a new forum board for 'whacky' science. In turn making the science board for TRUE science only, and this one for philosophy and most of the time, drivel.
Howdya like this then;

WE are mere ATOMS on a universal level - doing natures bidding! Have you SEEN people from a height? seen how they organise themselves - how they move. The are ANTS I tell you - ANTS! There are rules for walking - oh yes! PROGRAMMED into our minds. The rules of society - the rules of NATURE AND SCIENCE! The complex thoughts, worries and woes of mankind become INVISIBLE when you view them from above. From above -they are NOT the sentient beings we see them as - they are CELLS. No doubt cells are looking at atoms and saying the EXACT same thing. And no doubt ATOMS are looking at QUARKS and what-not and THINKING how quarks are not sentient -and how they are just building blocks operating on a set of rules. GALAXIES are not aware of US, you see, though there is reason to believe that galaxies are indeed... aware.

Just a thought...

Hi Rob:

I guess you couldn't wait for the new Forum!
jjw

If quarks are aware and Galaxies are aware, then we are just the awareness in the middle.
I wonder if you put the smallest quark at one end of the scale and the largeness of the universe on the other, where does the size of a human being fall? Are we in the middle? Where on the scale are we? Closer to the smallest thing or closer to the largest? I really wonder about this. Does anyone know?

As a wild guess I'd say we're bound to be on the smaller end of the scale. Lots of things are bigger than humans. Horses and cows and hogs are bigger, when you think about it. And compared to the size of the universe, we are really minute.

Rob: "Have you SEEN people from a height? seen how they organise themselves - how they move. The are ANTS I tell you - ANTS!"

REP: While you are up there, take out your binoculars and look down again. Can you see Shakespeare writing Hamlet, and is that Van-Gogh creating beauty in his madness?

Now stand above an ants nest and take out a magnifying glass. Is that an ant writing a sonnet? Is that another little critter writing about ***** envy in young ants? Is that another ant in love, ready and willing to lay down its life for her mate? No, probably not.

You have to get quite far away from humans to reduce them to the level of ants, and it doesn't matter how close you get to ants - they are still of an entirely different order of existence to humans.

Blacknad.

"If quarks are aware and Galaxies are aware, then we are just the awareness in the middle.
I wonder if you put the smallest quark at one end of the scale and the largeness of the universe on the other, where does the size of a human being fall? Are we in the middle? Where on the scale are we? Closer to the smallest thing or closer to the largest? I really wonder about this. Does anyone know?"

Amarnath, there is no proof yet that things can't get infinitely smaller. Therefore, humans are on no level since you cannot find an average when infinity is concerned.


Blacknad,
You can look at films, music and plays as a way to get 'cells' -people to act in a certain way. Some films make people angry, and make them rebel, it is a lot more complicated to us because we empathise for each other and are blinded.

Rob,
I was going on the basis of what we have been able to observe up to this time. I thought quarks were about as far as one could go. My bad.

Quarks are are the of the line Rose. To the best of our knowledge, both theoretical and experimental they can not be subdivided.

In that case I am sorry. But only on the condition that these experiments have proved that there can NEVER be a way to sub-divide quarks.

Well, have they?

Ok so quarks are smaller than 10 to the -18 meters (but just for fun lets say they actually are that size)

and the Universe is somewhere around 15 billion x 5.9 trillion miles.

where does that leave us? generally speaking? an approximation?

Don't be silly, the universe is infinitely big!

Universe is infinitely known by technology but finitely realized in practice.

Are you trying to say that through technology we can know that the universe is infinite, but what we can actually explore is limited?

I'm not convinced dvk knows what dvk is saying. It is seemingly a puff of smoke ... a chimera without substance.

No doubt an apparent statement of fact lacking in supporting evidence as well as substance.

Rob:

If the universe is infinitly big dose that mean there is no space/area/time left for anything else? Or do you suggest there can be more a thing larger than infinity? Sounds interesting.
jjw

No, infinity means everlasting/immeasurably big/immeasurably small. Basicaly everything.

Everything means -well everything. Take it literally.

I got the sense that the Universe does have a size and that it is expanding, and possibly slowing down. But the quarks as particle points have no size. So no matter how small or large the Universe is...as long as it has a size, then we are on the large end of things.

If both Universe and quarks are infinite then we are in the middle as the observer like you said in another post, Rob.

Justine wrote:
"If both Universe and quarks are infinite then we are in the middle as the observer like you said in another post"

We are, it would appear, definitely in the middle. But to claim that quarks are infinitely small would be a mistake. The definition of a quark includes a finite, in theory measurable, dimension.