2 ms·
>We can simply measure That "simply" is doing a lot of work there. Measurement is never simple, or correct. Yes, it's much, much more precise than it was in th
by TremendousJudge 5y ago
>We can simply measure
That "simply" is doing a lot of work there. Measurement is never simple, or correct. Yes, it's much, much more precise than it was in the past, but it's never exact. Until May 2019, the magnitude of many of the units composing the SI system of measurement, including most of those used in the measurement of electricity and light, were highly dependent upon the stability of a 142-year-old, golf-ball-sized cylinder of metal stored in a vault in France. The mass of this cylinder drifts when compared to copies, and nobody knows why. Yeah, the effect is super tiny, but the measurements are demonstrably _not precise_
- fsh 5y agoOf course measurements are always imperfect. The point is that an objective reality exists that can be measured. Which piece of rock we use to compare other masses to does not change that.
- TremendousJudge 5y agoI agree that in usual practice, we can assume that there is a measurable, objective reality. However, once you get to the limits of human knowledge, everything starts shifting like quicksand and it becomes less obvious that there's an objective reality that we all share.
- malermeister 5y agoHow does that in any way prove your point? What if all the measuring devices, their history, this very conversation, what if all of that was a hallucination? How would you know? How do you propose we definitely prove it isn't?