Measurements are not objective

[Mixcoatl]

Doesn't make it subjective that measurements are always relative to the scale you're using? 

That scale had to be defined by another scale making all the measurements always a relative comparison in an infinite chain or a circular chain of measurements and definitions. 😅

 

Edited Tuesday at 07:52 PM by Mixcoatl

[Mixcoatl]

A meter (m) is defined by the distance that light travels in a certain defined period. Hence, the definition of meter depends on the definition of time.

Time definition, a second (s), is defined by the period occurred during a certain number of times a cycle of the  radiation of cesium occurs. But this is circular because frequency is defined by time!!

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:05 PM by Mixcoatl

[Nemra]

I would say that, more fundamentally, those measurements are constructed on the change of present and past of some sensory phenomenon.

But the thing is that the past was present before getting to the present and it is also referred to in the present.

So the measurement is constructed on the present moment, and past moments that were present moments that together are constructed on the present moment. Past is a nested construction within the present.

Edited Tuesday at 11:07 PM by Nemra

[Mixcoatl]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

I would say that, more fundamentally, those measurements are constructed on the change of present and past of some sensory phenomenon.

But the thing is that the past was present before getting to the present and it is also referred to in the present.

So the measurement is constructed on the present moment, and past moments that were present moments that together are constructed on the present moment. Past is a nested construction within the present.

Agree. It makes them less objective because they try to measure the change of time in which they are occurring.

[yetineti]

They teach this in high school physics. Scientists are just too daft to relate it back to themselves.

Pearson/Prentice Hall’s Motion and Energy defines it as: “A reference point is a place or object used for comparison to determine if something is in motion.”

https://cdnsm5-ss18.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_213047/File/cpssa091.pdf

This ties into what you were saying because a reference point is basically the baseline you’re comparing or measuring against.

Things like position, displacement, velocity, and direction can change depending on the reference point or frame of reference you choose. So the point isn’t just whether something is moving. Measurements and descriptions only mean anything relative to some defined reference.

Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a similar point by questioning something as simple as the lines on a ruler. How wide are the lines? Does the measurement start at the edge or the center of the line? What measured that?

That’s the weird part. Measurements seem definite, but they’re really comparisons against agreed upon standards with some acceptable level of precision. Different industries understand this practically because they have to. When you buy something that’s 1/2 inch, it really means 1/2 inch within whatever tolerance that application requires.

The metaphysical implication is that we’re never really accessing some perfectly exact measurement independent of a reference system. We’re comparing things against other things with enough consistency to make the result useful.

And you don’t even need measurement to demonstrate the basic idea. If I’m trying to make two pieces fit, I can shave a little off, try it, shave a little more off, and keep doing that until they fit. I don’t need to know either object’s “true” dimensions. The objects themselves are my reference points.

Then we standardize those comparisons so everybody can reproduce them, get increasingly precise with trial and error, build on what worked before, and the next thing you know you’re flying to the fucking moon.

I just think that’s really cool. We create consistency because it works, then confuse that consistency for reality, all while teaching the basic mechanism behind it in public school physics haha.

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:34 AM by yetineti

[Mixcoatl]

@yetineti I'm not referring to the precision of a scale. 

I mean, a scale, let's say, something that measures distance like meter, has to be defined by another phenomenon of different nature. Meter is defined by the distance light travels in (1/c seconds). 

Second is defined by comparing this scale with another phenomenon: number of times a cycle of the energy of radiation of cesium occurs, this is frequency.

But frequency is f=1/s, which makes the comparison circular! Because second is depending on something that depends on the definition of second.

Every time you find a scale, you will see that its definition depends on the definition of another scale that in time depends of the definition of another, creating in time a circular chain of definitions. Similar to what happens with words.

What I want to say is that every scale is not an objective way of seeing the universe, no matter how precise is the scale. It just shows how congruent is the universe within itself.

[yetineti]

@Mixcoatl

Yup—those are called reference points, like I said. 

Even if your measurement were perfectly precise, you’d still be comparing something against a chosen standard. Improving precision doesn’t remove that dependence.

We’re agreeing on that. I’d just distinguish choosing the standard from choosing the result. Once the reference is established, the comparison can give a result that doesn’t depend on our opinions. Whether that amounts to an objective description of reality is the deeper question.

 

Edited 18 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

When you say “not objective,” do you mean measurements depend on a reference system, or that they depend on someone’s opinion? I agree with the first, but I don’t think it automatically establishes the second.

[Mixcoatl]

@yetineti I mean the first one. I'm referring on how floating is the act of measuring. Of course, the precision is implicit there, but that's not the point. 

 

What I'm trying to say is how they try to make universe objective by saying "science deals with objective definitions"... as DeGrasse keeps on saying, by the way.

They say cesium is highly stable because they compare the frequency with the occurrence of other cesium or other events in universe. But they don't know if it occurred in 5 sec or one million years, or instantly, so to speak.

Another example: time depends on how things change. If you don't have anything at all of course you can't talk about time. Velocity is defined on how something changes it's position across time (v=d/t), but time is the measure of how things change position. The system is all floating.

[yetineti]

Then we’ve agreed.

[Mixcoatl]

5 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Then we’ve agreed.

No because we're talking about different things. You're talking about precision and the standards of a scale.

[yetineti]

Precision was an additional point, not the whole argument. That’s why I said even a perfectly precise measurement would still depend on a reference system.

When I asked which meaning you intended, you chose dependence on references. That’s what I meant we agreed on. What distinction do you think I’m still missing?

 

[Mixcoatl]

Ok, we agreed on that point. What I wanna say is that it goes beyond that first reference system (maybe you know it already): measurements are not absolute because the whole system of definitions is circular because the definition of meter depends on the definition of meter, eventually.

If you pick the word "hypothesis", you look for its definition on a dictionary, that depends on other words. If you follow the chain, eventually you will get a definition that uses the word "hypothesis". Then, the definition of the word "hypothesis" depends on itself.

Measurements define nothing because they are circular.

Edited 17 hours ago by Mixcoatl

[yetineti]

Correct, measurements are circular. That was my point about precision.

Measurements do define things—within an established tolerance.

Tolerance is just how ‘accurate’ we require the measurement to be.

Accuracy is circular here as well.

I was basically adding to your point, while showcasing how precision adds to the illusion.

Measuring and science itself used to be disputed much more due to their lack of precision.

Science and measurements are too precise now. People mistake measurements for absolutions, as you’ve realized with this thread.

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by yetineti

[Mixcoatl]

@yetineti i Just read again all the thread, making an exercise of modesty this time to see that you are expressing the same.

I'm really amazed how measurements need to be very accurate for things like the hadron collider or advanced science. But somehow, they will always escape from the grounding.

[Joseph Maynor]

God forbid one's measurements are off.