Philosophy Now Forum

The Problem of Measurement and Planck Time

The problem is that the Planck unit of time, which in itself is a "unit" hence is dependent upon relations, requires further "Planck units" to exist. Hence for the Plank unit to be what it is, as a unit, it must continually relate to further units, etc.. In this manner the Plank unit, at least what I argue and this is strictly "opinionated", is an observation of point 0 where movement ceases. The problem occurs in the respect that as a unit, dependent upon other units to which it relates, the Plank Unit (while applicable to current measurements in physics) is strictly subjective to the methodology and technology to which the method is applied.

In these respects the Plank Unit is dependent upon further units of measurement to exist. Considering the "unit" or "part of a whole" is dependent upon a process of individuation in which it can be observed as a single entity this process itself implies:

1) The unit as part of a whole, exists in relation to other units. This is common sense.
2) However the unit, as a "relative" whole in itself, must be composed of further units.
3) To synthesize the arguments of points 1 and 2 the Plank Unit is strictly the "current" measurement to which we can currently "divide" a physical reality.
4) As a current measurement, with measurement itself being subject to time in the respect it is dependent upon finite symbols, this measurement exists as a "part" of a further "measurement".
5) As a part of a further measurement it must further individuate, or seperate, into further measurements due to its dependence upon time. This is considering that time is an inherent part of the measurement process.
6) In these respects the Plank Unit, although completely valid in the physics community, must eventually be broken down over time or in simpler terms: eventually lay the foundation for further units of measurement.

Do you know how to work out what the Planck Time is in seconds? It's not hard.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:19 am Do you know how to work out what the Planck Time is in seconds? It's not hard.

I can look it up, or if you post it I would also appreciate that. I read it a few times but never committed it to memory for whatever reason.

However, the problem "I" have (subjectively speaking) is more of a conceptual problem (and may better be relegated to Metaphysics rather than Physics) in the respect that when we observe a unit it is inherently composed of further units. These units are dependent, as you know, on a process of measurement through division. There is nothing deep or complex about this statement, it is mostly common sense.

The problem occurs as to the nature of division. Now the Planck Time, as a "concept" (emphasis on concept), is the "limit" of this ability to empirically divide a reality. In these respects, while dependent upon units which each are "1" in themselves, it appears the Planck Time has reached a "point zero" in our ability to measure a reality. This point zero, however, is dependent upon a metaphysical understanding of space in the respect we are observing an "no dimensionality". Hence it appears the Planck Time is merely an empirical way of observing, how to say, "space folding in upon itself" through a zero-dimensional field?

The problem again occurs, in my mind at least, that if we are observing Planck Time in such a manner as "movement in a zero-dimensional field", this field in itself would have to exist within a further field as a field can be observed as a particle of another field while a particle can be viewed as a field (relativistically speaking).

In simpler terms one man's particle is another's field and one man's field is another's particle.

So, because of this relativistic viewpoint, we have a problem (maybe not a problem but rather an inherent dualism) of "alternation" in the course of measurement and the question occurs what the Plank Time, as an observation of Locality in Space/Time, is an "actual" measurement which is dependent upon a non-localized "potential measurement"? Observing the nature of actuality and potentiality observes a further form of alternation in the respect that all potentiality eventually becomes localized. Applying this premise, in regards to Planck Time, the question occurs (in my mind again): What is the potential non-localized "axiom", or measurement, that the Planck Time (as a localized axiom), is dependent upon for the process of measurement to "move through time". (This statement may sound obscure, but I have found no real way to word it).