The micro and the macro

[geordief]

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 December 29, 2016 by geordief

[Ophiolite]

Do you think classification systems are real or artificial?

[geordief]

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 December 29, 2016 by geordief

[Itoero]

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

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

[StringJunky]

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 December 30, 2016 by StringJunky

[geordief]

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 December 30, 2016 by geordief

[Itoero]

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