What Distance Must An Object Be For Its Appearance To Equal Its Real Size?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Scottydamion
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 04:26 pm
@north,
north;135567 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
if size is relative then the size of the African Elephant can compared to an atom no matter where you are in the Universe





why is an atom size not objective , lets say hydrogen


It may be a consistent standard to use, but what does that say about the true size of something? Size is still relative, you would just be comparing everything to the standard size of a hydrogen atom.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 06:51 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;135439 wrote:
What is the size of an atom?


They say that the number of atoms a glass of water contains more atoms that there are stars in the universe
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 09:56 pm
@Pythagorean,
Its "real size"? But this word "real" will mean different things according to its integration within a system of concepts that it cannot exists apart from. It's meaning cannot be fixed, as this would require our minds to be identical to one another.

"Real" is only separate from Network on paper.
 
InABox
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:09 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;135740 wrote:
It's meaning cannot be fixed, as this would require our minds to be identical to one another.


Not neccesarily, we could all be seeing different things, but if the meaning was fixed, that would lead to the conclusion that our realities are identical (which i am assuming they are here), not our minds. We could all see a quarter as being a different size from different, but it's actual size wouldn't vary. And you can figure out any object's actual size no matter how close or far it is if you know HOW close or far it is. Its real size is what you are seeing.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:17 pm
@InABox,
In.A.Box;135744 wrote:
Not neccesarily, we could all be seeing different things, but if the meaning was fixed, that would lead to the conclusion that our realities are identical (which i am assuming they are here), not our minds. We could all see a quarter as being a different size from different, but it's actual size wouldn't vary. And you can figure out any object's actual size no matter how close or far it is if you know HOW close or far it is. Its real size is what you are seeing.


How does a colorblind person have an identical reality to the rest of us? The idea of "red" or "blue" etc... are all the same to them, making their reality not identical to those who can distinguish between colors.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:35 pm
@InABox,
In.A.Box;135744 wrote:
Not neccesarily, we could all be seeing different things, but if the meaning was fixed, that would lead to the conclusion that our realities are identical (which i am assuming they are here), not our minds. We could all see a quarter as being a different size from different, but it's actual size wouldn't vary. And you can figure out any object's actual size no matter how close or far it is if you know HOW close or far it is. Its real size is what you are seeing.



I completely see your point, and it is more than valid for practical purposes. I suppose my question is a thought-experiment. If all our individual concepts get their meaning from a network of such concepts, then none of us would have a priority on the real. (Not my practical opinion.)

To measure an object requires a mathematically or conceptual method. We can stabilize meaning in a book, but perhaps not as it is integrated into a living emotional sensual system of concepts.

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 11:37 PM ----------

Scottydamion;135750 wrote:
How does a colorblind person have an identical reality to the rest of us? The idea of "red" or "blue" etc... are all the same to them, making their reality not identical to those who can distinguish between colors.



Yes! We can't forget that reality is qualia as well as concept. And that concepts exists as cells within a system of concepts, all meaning entangled save the most abstract, if not also this.

And "objectivity" is made of concept. Kant just can't; not really.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/28/2020 at 06:43:59