Jump to content

The micro and the macro


geordief

Recommended Posts

Is there a relationship between these two areas?

 

Does it make sense to talk about them in this generalist,absolutist way?

 

Does the micro "cause" the macro or can it be imagined that it could actually be the other way around?

 

If the universe began with one thing ,could it be considered a macro object which went on to "spawn" micro objects?

 

Does the whole concept of "began" not hold water in the first place and also does this concept of the macro and the micro as two distinct areas not hold water either?

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think classification systems are real or artificial?

 

 

They are man made and so by definition artificial.

 

They are also ,practically by definition imperfect as they form a bridge between what we know and what we are trying to make out.

 

They do have their own separate reality but it is a subjective* reality confined to the region(s) of the mind.

 

Do you think I have wrongly classified in my OP?

 

 

*or "inter-subjective" acc. Stringkunky http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97105-is-space-time-a-physical-entity-or-a-mathematical-model/page-1#entry936114 post#18 and#19

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micro and macro concern imo an 'artificial' way to describe reality.

The causal relationship you can ascribe to micro an macro is imo subjective.

All classifications are artificial because reality is a continuum. It's our way of cutting it up into discrete parts so that we can make sense of it and talk about it

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All classifications are artificial because reality is a continuum. It's our way of cutting it up into discrete parts so that we can can make sense of it and talk about it

Am I being contrarian//pedantic /literalist/plain wrong to observe that quantum reality is discontinuous?

Micro and macro concern imo an 'artificial' way to describe reality.

The causal relationship you can ascribe to micro an macro is imo

Does the "Just because you are paranoid does not mean....." saying work here as an analogy?

 

Just because our models are imperfect does that make them wrong? (Can they be "right" without us knowing? Can we be "almost there"?)

 

We are looking for a quantum gravity model and trying to unify two very powerful modalities(good term?) but can we deny the present schism?

 

Will that schism disappear once we have found a way to integrate the two "systems" ?

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because our models are imperfect does that make them wrong? (Can they be "right" without us knowing? Can we be "almost there"?)

A model is in a sense always imperfect. Science is a never ending search for absolute truth. A correct model shows truth concerning its reality.

I do make a distinction between the reality used in a model and absolute/ultimate reality.

 

We are looking for a quantum gravity model and trying to unify two very powerful modalities(good term?) but can we deny the present schism?

 

Will that schism disappear once we have found a way to integrate the two "systems" ?

It depends how science will evolve. In order for this 'schism' to disappear, a quantum gravity model needs to be proven and it needs to find its place in the world of physics.

I don't know if we can ever prove such a model.

Hirosi Ooguri wrote a paper in which he explains how space time emerges from quantum entanglement.

http://www.ipmu.jp/en/node/2174

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.