What if there really was a dividing line between the micro and the macro?

If there really is a dividing line between the microcosm and the macrocosm that divides the microcosm and the macrocosm, then the microcosm side is a tiny matter, and the macrocosm side is a huge matter.

If there is really a dividing line between the micro and the macro, I think this dividing line must be a dihedron, which can be both micro and macroscopic!

For example, for the universe, human beings are microcosmic, and for human beings, cells are microcosm, and if there is, it is about to break the basic principles of science.

There are no clear boundaries.

The English word for micro is "micro", which originally meant "small". It refers to the material system with a spatial linearity of less than 10-9 meters (i.e., below nanometers) in particle natural science.

These include molecules, atoms, nuclei, elementary particles, and their corresponding fields. Elementary particles also have their internal structure. All levels of the microcosm have wave-particle duality and obey the laws of quantum mechanics.

Macro: A philosophical term that refers to a large aspect or totality. Common phrases are macro theory, macro world, macroeconomics.

1. Macro, talking about the big pattern and direction; Madhyamaka, which talks about specific patterns and methods; The microscopic is about specific exercises and actions.

2. Macro, meso, and micro can be corresponded to with different conceptual frameworks. For example, strategy, planning and execution; For example, goals, methods, and actions.

3. In the social sciences or the concept in a broad sense, macro refers to the observation from the big aspect, and micro refers to the observation from the small aspect.

So where is the boundary between micro and macro in?

I still have the consistent view that the world is holographic, the so-called one sand and one world, any point is a microcosm of all, an atom, a molecule, a grain of sand, a leaf, a tree, a chair, a person, a group of people, a planet, a physical system, a virtual system all have the same structure and mechanism.

For example, the psychology of a person conforms to the laws of individual psychology, while the psychology of a group of people conforms to the laws of collective psychology, which are completely different and have a certain connection. The boundary between one person and a group of people is in **? Three people, five people, or more.

The so-called three people become tigers, three monks have no water to eat, three people can become a small group, three people are this boundary, from this boundary, the individual psychology disappears, followed by the group psychology. The most typical example is **, ** can be said to be the reflection of group psychology on a specific financial platform, which is completely inconsistent with the laws of individual psychology, so it is always in vain for individuals to try to understand.

When we encounter difficulties in studying a system, we might as well look at the system we are familiar with, and maybe we can find some ideas, because the world is holographic.

The boundary between the microcosm and the macrocosm is in**, why is there such a boundary, as if there are two different worlds, two completely different laws govern them, is this boundary immutable?

If you look back at our **, as the height of the observer changes, so does its boundary. A higher level ** has a higher level of boundaries in his eyes. Originally, three people in a group, in his eyes, the threshold of regular changes could be raised to thirty people.

If this person has a professional team, then the boundaries of what he can grasp are a higher level. If the person controls an institution, the level is higher, and the boundary between the micro and the macro is different. Until he grasped the whole market, at this time the boundary between micro and macro was eliminated.

From this point of view, it is the height of the observer in the observation system that determines the boundary between the micro and the macro. Using the analogy between ** and the physical world, can we say that in the boundary of the change of physical laws, it is human beings as observers, whose height determines the boundary between the micro and the macro. The position of human beings in the universe is such that they can only feel the part of the body that extends around him physiologically, for example, people can only see visible light, but not ultraviolet infrared rays.

The devices and instruments invented by human beings are related to human beings, but with the sensitivity of instruments, this limit is constantly increasing, until one day all the laws become a unified law, which may be the unified field theory that Einstein has been studying in the second half of his life.

There is no absolute boundary between the micro and the macro, and in daily life, the visible to the naked eye prevails: the cells visible to the naked eye (such as the egg cells of many animals) are macroscopic objects, and the cells that are invisible to the naked eye (such as the bacteria on your **) are microscopic objects. A well-known microscopic example is "microscopic particles", such as oxygen atoms.

1. The macro problem can grasp the main content of the problem from the whole, study the overall relationship of things, and obtain a more universally applicable conclusion; Viewing and dealing with problems from a macro perspective can improve efficiency and save research costs, but the conclusion drawn from this paper is that the buried difference has a special liquid noise, and there is no clear reflection on the internal part of things, which is easy to cause detail defects.

2. The problem can grasp the detailed situation of the problem from specific aspects, and obtain more objective and true conclusions and insights; Viewing and dealing with problems from a micro perspective can reduce mistakes, improve the accuracy of decision-making, and improve the rigor of theory, but it lacks efficiency, time and energy, and is difficult to carry out in practice.