What if? A sort of philosophical question.

Medusa said:
With the speed of light and color perception thing, wouldn't our color receptors, rods and cones, having also doubled, negate any change in perception?
Click to expand...

Good question, I don't know. I suppose our colour receptors, rods and cones, might compensate if they too get bigger. But then the question might be, would larger cones interpret the longer wavelengths is a favourable way, or would smaller rods and cons interpret the situation of longer wavelengths better??
 

Wow, I am way behind in this discussion, still interesting though.

Been thinking about the doubling in size question. Simple quick answer is no difference, but I am not sure that's true. As size increases some characteristics cannot change in the same way.

Take for example a sphere at 1 foot in diameter the volume would be 0.52 ft3, and surface area 3.14 ft2, or 6 ft2 per ft3.

At a diameter of 2 feet the volume would be 4.19 ft3, almost 10 times at 1 foot. And the surface area 12.6 ft2 or 3 ft2 per ft3.

Applied to an animal that is a significant difference. As size increases volume increases more and the surface area per unit volume goes down. This would mean an animal at twice the diameter would likely take more than twice the food, and would dissipate heat more slowly.

There are many other examples in nature.

Medusa said:
I'd really like to get you in a Zoom Meeting where we could talk this stuff through using only what is in our minds at the time, no internet aids. Would be fun and you have me at a disadvantage on this particular stage as you have a wider knowledge base.
Click to expand...
That would be an interesting one to listen in on, but probably over my head a bit...

Back to @chic 's original question:
chic said:
What if reality is just what we BELIEVE it to be based on our traditions and teachings, culture and religion as opposed to it being concrete and tangible? I don't buy into the theory that the universe is just a hologram, but to some it is. :unsure: This makes me think about reality and how it really is largely subjective.
Click to expand...
I don't believe reality is subjective... but then if it were how would I know?
 
oldlongwalker said:
Try making it simpler. Imagine yourself in a box 20x20x20. You are 5 feet tall. There is a ball in the box 1 foot in diameter. Both you and the ball are each 1 foot away from each opposite wall. You go to sleep. When you wake up, unbeknownst to you, everything in the room has doubled in size. Since everything has doubled, all the proportions between you, the walls and the ball will be the same, just larger than they were. The room is 40x40x40, you are 10 feet tall, the ball is 2 feet in diameter and you are both 2 feet away from opposite wall. Your height is still 1/4 the height of the room. The diameter of the ball is still 1/20th the height and you are both 1/20th of a distance from the nearest wall.
Click to expand...
You seem to want me to answer your questions before you answer mine.

I don't see how the analogy you give above is representing the original. Your original question is more general scenario that asks if someone would be able to tell if everything in the universe had doubled in size. It did not specify any particular objects or dimensions or context, and therefore the wording of your original question allows for a wider range of interpretations and implications.

Your latest question represents a specific scenario where dimensions of a box and the things inside are doubled. This new question is about the proportions between the objects and the room, and whether they are maintained.

I’m getting the impression you asked the wrong original question based on what you were trying to achieve.

All my responses still hold up to the original question.
 

Last edited:
Magna-Carta said:
You seem to want me to answer your questions before you answer mine.

I don't see how the analogy you give above is representing the original. Your original question is more general scenario that asks if someone would be able to tell if everything in the universe had doubled in size. It did not specify any particular objects or dimensions or context, and therefore the wording of your original question allows for a wider range of interpretations and implications.

Your latest question represents a specific scenario where dimensions of a box and the things inside are doubled. This new question is about the proportions between the objects and the room, and whether they are maintained.

I’m getting the impression you asked the wrong original question based on what you were trying to achieve.
Click to expand...
I was trying to make a simpler scenario that expresses the same result. If the simpler scenario were expanded, the result would be the same as the original.
 
I used to tell my school kids, who could come up with thousands of what ifs, particularly concerning homework, that I don’t do what ifs. What if cows flew? I’d say. Then we’d all have to carry umbrellas. I still don’t do what ifs. I just deal with things as they come.
 
oldlongwalker said:
I was trying to make a simpler scenario that expresses the same result. If the simpler scenario were expanded, the result would be the same as the original.
Click to expand...
Ok, but I’m not personally seeing it. As the original scenario doesn’t seem that well refined to me. The wording of it leaves the context wide open.
 
Last edited:
palides2021 said:
Not necessarily. That's the thing, they do not remain constant. If a fire is one foot away, and it doubles in size, won't you feel the heat more?
Click to expand...
I don't see why I would if I and the space between the fire and I also doubled in size. The fire would then be two feet away and I would be the same proportionately to the fire as I was when the fire and I were both smaller, so no, I wouldn't feel more heat.
 
Kind of a fun thread, one problem I see is defining what doubling means, twice the weight, twice the volume, twice the height, twice the surface area, twice the energy etc. They are not the same thing...

If you double your weight your bones would have to more than double in strength to keep from breaking in a fall. The kinetic energy of a fall quadruples when mass doubles. In the same way that the kinetic energy of wind is 4 times as much at 100 mph as at 50 mph.

And I think I'd notice if my bank account doubled...
 
Alligatorob said:
Kind of a fun thread, one problem I see is defining what doubling means, twice the weight, twice the volume, twice the height, twice the surface area, twice the energy etc. They are not the same thing...

If you double your weight your bones would have to more than double in strength to keep from breaking in a fall. The kinetic energy of a fall quadruples when mass doubles. In the same way that the kinetic energy of wind is 4 times as much at 100 mph as at 50 mph.

And I think I'd notice if my bank account doubled...
Click to expand...
OMG, I think you guys are missing the spirit of this question. 😁 ❤️
 
Alligatorob said:
Kind of a fun thread, one problem I see is defining what doubling means, twice the weight, twice the volume, twice the height, twice the surface area, twice the energy etc. They are not the same thing...

If you double your weight your bones would have to more than double in strength to keep from breaking in a fall. The kinetic energy of a fall quadruples when mass doubles. In the same way that the kinetic energy of wind is 4 times as much at 100 mph as at 50 mph.

And I think I'd notice if my bank account doubled...
Click to expand...

I remember this type of thing when a biology teacher asked the class would an ant be able to support its weight when everything about the ant was scaled up form it’s original proportions to the size of an elephant. I was 14 or 15 at the time. I remembered it because it tuned evening around on its head compared to what I previously thought. The answer is no it wouldn’t be able to support itself. Even if its legs were scaled up to the same proportions. Neither would its exoskeleton. in it wouldn’t be able to breath either.
 
Medusa said:
OMG, I think you guys are missing the spirit of this question. 😁 ❤️
Click to expand...
It seemed like the wrong question for its open context. Now I look, I’ve not been able to find any examples of it. Or at least not in the way it was worded in the context of the universe .
 
Last edited:
oldlongwalker said:
Of the three possible options, only the first allows for the possibility of solipsism. There is no possibility of solipsism if you are an idealist or a materialist.

I don't think mind/body dualism is defensible,
Click to expand...

Solipsism would be a pathological state anyhow so no great loss.

Mind body dualism understood as incommensurable substances is problematic and useless. But obviously we have/are both and there is a reason to pay attention to the difference. There is thinking we do in a self conscious, abstract way which is largely up to us but there are also realizations we become aware of which flow from our being embodied which we don’t produce in any deliberate way. But the mind body problem usually conceives of the mind in terms of the narrow focused kind in which we are in complete control. But the problem is solved because even though that part of our brain is or can be disconnected from our body there is another part of the brain which is deeply connected to the body through which the abstract, narrowly focused bit is grounded in the world. The problem is that the newer, conscious, language using part of our brains is prone to get confused, even deluded. It isn’t as bright as the less verbal, less accessible but fully grounded portion. If we were better balanced between the two halves of our brain there would be no mind body problem to worry about. That at least is the view of Iain McGilchrist who has gathered the research into brain lateralization plus much more and written a couple fascinating books. But this video which is where I started makes for a decent introduction:

 
Medusa said:
Are you familiar with the - do you remember the Hawking, Mlodinow book, The Grand Design, (I think) wherein they talk about the perspective of reality as viewed by a goldfish in a convex bowl?

I know I've just done that thing wherein I am using the words of others, but I did listen to that book (albeit many years ago) and am drawing from memory here, which is why I'm not giving a lot of detail.

It seems to apply here, in any event.
Click to expand...
Just got the audio version and started listening today on my morning walk. Regarding the goldfish scenario: imagine the goldfish jumps out of the water and perches on the ledge of the bowl. What would it see?
 
oldlongwalker said:
Just got the audio version and started listening today on my morning walk. Regarding the goldfish scenario: imagine the goldfish jumps out of the water and perches on the ledge of the bowl. What would it see?
Click to expand...
A new reality. Perhaps one it did could not make sense of given the "rules" of the only reality it's ever known.
(So cool that you got the book!) Maybe I'll do a Blinkist refresher. :)
 
Medusa said:
A new reality. Perhaps one it did could not make sense of given the "rules" of the only reality it's ever known.
(So cool that you got the book!) Maybe I'll do a Blinkist refresher. :)
Click to expand...
The key is that the fish had attained the viewpoint required of being separate from, or outside of, the bowl which has been filtering perception. This is similar to the way air was first discovered by Empedocles.

A little later I'll give another example of how the analysis of language relates to this. Hopefully it will work better than the world doubling one.
 
Well, the question was what the goldfish would see once out of the bowl which I understood to be a question as to my opinion about a given scenario.

What you said above, about the fish obtaining a new viewpoint, separate from his bowl/filter, was inherent in your and question my answer.

I would be like asking: "What would happen if the fish jumped out of the bowl and gained a new view?"
And the answers: "The fish has obtained a new viewpoint, separate from the only known previous, which he may or may not understand."

To which you're now restating, as the key, that the fish as gained a new perspective.

I'd thought that was obvious, the new perspective gaining and the question was about the fish's potential reactions to it.
 
Medusa said:
Well, the question was what the goldfish would see once out of the bowl which I understood to be a question as to my opinion about a given scenario.

What you said above, about the fish obtaining a new viewpoint, separate from his bowl/filter, was inherent in your and question my answer.

I would be like asking: "What would happen if the fish jumped out of the bowl and gained a new view?"
And the answers: "The fish has obtained a new viewpoint, separate from the only known previous, which he may or may not understand."

To which you're now restating, as the key, that the fish as gained a new perspective.

I'd thought that was obvious, the new perspective gaining and the question was about the fish's potential reactions to it.
Click to expand...
It may be obvious, but the point is that in order to see it the fish had to get a distance from it. There was no way for the fish to have any awareness of the glass until it had a separate viewpoint. Consider the following:

Imagine a species of thinking fish with a language. They have cataloged and given names to all of the objects in their environment: sharks, anenomes, coral, etc. Would they have a word for water?
 
If being literal, I'd say that yes, they'd have a word for water just as we have a word for air (although it's a bit different in that fish would be able to discern an endpoint to water).

However, I think the larger meaning you're working toward here is the role of linguistics in describing reality. Language, in my understanding, is basically a set of mutually agreed-upon symbols to describe what we perceive.

My question then is, what's your point? :)
 
Medusa said:
If being literal, I'd say that yes, they'd have a word for water just as we have a word for air (although it's a bit different in that fish would be able to discern an endpoint to water).

However, I think the larger meaning you're working toward here is the role of linguistics in describing reality. Language, in my understanding, is basically a set of mutually agreed-upon symbols to describe what we perceive.

My question then is, what's your point? :)
Click to expand...
Empedocles discovered air by finding that something was preventing a jug from being filled with water when help upside down under water. (It is a bit more complicated, but the point holds.) As for fish, the only way they could have a word for water is if they were able to detect it. The only way to do that would be to isolate themselves from it. One such way would be to get out of the water.

Imagine one of these fish gets caught by a fisherman. It flops around on the deck and realizes something has changed. By luck it jumps back into the water. It relates the experience to others. They figure out that maybe swimming up and jumping up out of the water might work to confirm the experience. It does. Thus they discover water and give it a name.

If you don't mind I'm going to break this up a bit.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top