What is more massive: 1) that part of the universe that is outside of one’s skin, or 2) that part of the universe that is inside of one’s skin?
That part of the universe that is OUTSIDE of one’s skin is more massive.
That part of the universe that is INSIDE of one’s skin is more massive.
Both are essentially equally massive.
It varies.
It’s not really possible for us to know.
I don’t know.
0voters
What is more massive: 1) that part of the universe that is outside of one’s skin, or 2) that part of the universe that is inside of one’s skin?
On the surface, this might seem an easy question with an obvious answer (answer #1).
Still, I can’t help but wonder about the answer.
If infinity is real, then when considering infinity – both that which is infinitely large and infinitely small – is the answer to this question less obvious?
If the obvious answer is then cast a bit doubtful, in that density at the very least plays a role in the answer, what does this mean with regard to “common sense” physics?
What also does this mean with regard to philosophical perspective?
Does epistemological knowledge of “the world” suddenly become less meaningful in deference to ontological awareness from the inside out?
And, while we’re at it, just where is the center of the universe, anyway?
Infinity is a speed. Our bodies are very slow and complex so there is more mass, or complexity, in our reality. Spatially speaking the limits ‘both ways’ are unreachable by the spatial. This is what makes us spatial, our motion imparted to us from the non-spatial.
Not taking “massive” in the sense of having mass, but in a sense of being larger, I would say that the world inside of one’s skin is greater; the universe comes in through our senses, but the inner man also has it’s experiences, so the person is greater than the universe by one interiority.
Also, they say that he who saves one man saves a world. This would lead me to the conclusion that the measures inside and outside a person are equal. And in a pregnant person, the two would be double the size of the universe.
But in any case, if you don’t include the skin in the person, they will not live long.
Yes, one’s skin is included in the “within” a person option … though without the world around us we wouldn’t live long either.
Still, there is infinity.
We have two poll responses so far that say the world outside our skin is more massive.
But how can we tell? By looking with our eyes?
Sure, it would seem common sensical that the world outside our skin is “larger”.
But larger doesn’t mean more massive, does it?
The theoretical big bang has at its foundation the concept that a singularity existed within which all mass and energy originated from an infinitessimally small existent.
Though logically we might deduce that all such mass released and distributed is still the same amount of mass just spaced out in various larger forms, to imply that the larger something is the more massive it is requires resting that theory on the grounds of finity, ignoring the reality of infinity.
And though one might say that everything has an infinitive withinness and so such cancels out in the equation and larger implies more massive, how do we know that such a big bang type singularity doesn’t exist in any one person? Great religious imaginers might speculate that Jesus contained such a singularity!
Given physical science as it locally is, it would be acceptable to conclude that the world outside our skin is more massive.
But if you factor in inifinity, density and consider everywhere a possibility – like “Men In Black”'s galaxy in a marble and the reality that things are as they are and are not fantastically “multiple universe” different --, can we really know for sure which is more massive, that which is without us or that which is within us?
Well, talking physically, if there are other people of the same type as yourself, their mass together, at least, would be greater than yourself. And if so, whatever source of matter (the Earth) from which the mass of their bodies are taken would probably be much greater if there is room for many more people to depend on the planet for matter. I see it is hard to judge the mass between planets, and maybe the mass of gasseus stars, but planets certainly are massive. In fact, if these massive planets revolve around the stars, the stars are that much more massive.
But then, I’m probably arguing from posterior knowlege.
As for the singularity inside a person, wouldn’t it weigh as much as a universe?
I had to answer in the common-sense way, because you used the words “mass” and “skin,” which defines the question as being a scientific one about the objective world. The self, or consciousness, may have more metaphorical “mass” – more significance – than the world outside the self (if indeed such exists in the first place), but the human body inside the skin does not have more literal mass than the universe outside it.
Infinity does not exist in the real world, but even if it did, the mass of a human body is finite (and not infinitely small, either; definitely a nonzero value) and this is less than the infinite mass of the universe – less also than the noninfinite, but still very large, mass that the universe actually has.
The only reason the question holds any ambiguity at all is because our consciousness seems to live within our skin. (Actually it lives everywhere equally, but we do live with that illusion.) But this has nothing to do with the body’s mass.
-Infinity is not a reality. Some, like Navigator, would say it’s not even a possibility. But regardless, neither infinite largeness nor infinite smallness should be treated as a given.
-Since we are assembled from a portion of the matter that was a part of the singularity before the big bang, we would need to contain more half the mass in the universe to be more massive than all that which is without us.
-Given that most things aren’t affected by our gravitational fields in a macroscopic way, while many are affect by the earth’s magnetic field, we are probably less massive than the earth.
-What does any of this have to do with the center of the universe?
Spiritually, it’s where you are. Ever seen the interviews with Joseph Campbell? He says that in myths the center of the universe is where the spiritual and the physical meet…whether that’s the Black Hills, or the Vatican, or someplace else.
Physically, if there was a Big Bang, wouldn’t it be at the center of the universe phenomenon it exploded into? Or maybe the BB exploded in one direction only. Or maybe the universe’s begining did not act like an explosion on Earth.
Actually, if the 3D universe is warped into a fourth physical dimension, the center of the universe may not be in our timespace. For example, while if the universe is in whe shape of a 4th dimensional doughnut, the center might be either said to be a circle (or sphere if 3D) in the middle of the doughnut’s curve, it could also be on a point in the center of the doughnut hole.
But maybe a math major on here can better tell what would happen in higher physical dimensions.
