Spatially, for the present we could make almost close to absolutely flat, horizontal cross section could be made to some extent, nevertheless, to time, that device could be limited at picturing aspect, not so spatially, nor materially embodied.

What does cause that essential difference?

Essentially infinitely bigger could be pictured at least in mind. However, inifintiely smaller could not be so done easily, necessarily that could rely on our bodily size, or kind of our given physical condition and each materially present particle's sizable dimension.

If that mutual gap could be defined with FAMILIARITY, we'd make evidencing that our measurement must depend on our own physically, geographically familiar sensed condition.

Suppositionally, now so far, FAMILIALITY could be interpreted as 〔→←〕, we could formulate like next.
But, simultaneously, now so far, either infinity of smaller extent could be supposed at (→←),

Toward Infinity of larger extent, we'd formulate like next.

         
        (→←) ≠ (←→),

        →← = (←→)

That formulation's seemed contradictory contary nature probably means just spatially easily confirmable. 

On the other hand, 

         (→←) means probalby,

         (→←) = ¬〔→←〕

Necessarily  (←→) means infinity of larger extent,

        (←→)  = 〔→←〕

based on, 
If UNFAMILIARITY could be signified as 〔←→〕,

      〔←→〕 ≠    (←→)

This otherwise could signiiy the essentially characterized difference between physically extent indication and metaphysically extent indication( necessarily, FAMILIARITY and UNFAMILIARITY means metaphysically extent indication.

(to be continued)

Feb. 11th.    2022