Thinking about the “limit” to our perception, beyond which it is not possible to go- and was trying to find something similar, which talks about limit of something
Confused between B and D:
(i) Logic for B: The animal has an inherent limit (just like our visual perception limit) that it cannot understand complex commands after a certain point- this actually fit well with the logic as per my understanding, can you help me point out the flaw in this reasoning?
(ii) Logic for D: The film has a hard limit here, so this also looked pretty good (and is correct)
Your help in explaining the logic here would be really appreciated! Would also love to understand- what do you typically do when you have 2 options where you are confused (if that happens)- how can I avoid such situations/ tackle them?
“an ultimate limit beyond which no instrument can take us; this limit is imposed by our inability to receive sense-data smaller than those conveyed by an individual quantum of energy. Since these quanta are believed to be indivisible packages of energy and so cannot be further refined, we reach a point beyond which further resolution of the world is not possible. It is like a drawing a child might make by sticking indivisible discs of color onto a canvas.”
It speaks to the idea of breaking something complex down into the smallest units possible. Our own ability to perceive is not the important point here, it’s that there is nothing smaller to perceive.
Where in (B) are we seeing the idea of zooming in to the most essential elements?
From the part you have pasted, I was maybe anchoring mostly on the wording, “…our inability to receive sense-data…”- thus pointing to how it’s an internal ability issue.
But I see that it later also says that that quanta itself cannot be divided- I wasn’t able to make sense of both of these ideas together, and which one to understand as the main point for this question.
