I wrote:This would appear to highlight the problem I see with words. 'Event' would seem to have to carry several meanings to varying levels of precision. On the one hand it could be describing a party which can be pinned down to a date and happening over many hours, on the other hand it could describe a proton moving at near light speed passing a detector. Its meaning can also be more esoteric.
Depends on what type of parties you get invited to, I guess. But, no, I was thinking of things like death and falling into black holes and such stuff.To which you wrote:I doubt we'll get much more esoteric outside of the space between these two meanings.
By precision I was meaning two things, firstly the need to define the event and also the need to measure the event. Vague definitions lead to vague measurements like when does bread become toast? Very precise definitions highlight other problems such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which makes measuring the position of fast moving protons a bit of a pain unless you accept that limitation.But what do you mean by 'precision'? 'Shortness of event'? As a "proton moving at near light speed passing a detector" is still an event? Cl..ick
Not quite sure what you are getting at here. From memory, a photomultiplier simply uses the photoelectric effect to allow a photon to knock an electron off a charged plate which then is accelerated towards other charged plates, knocking more electrons free and so on in an avalanche until you get a detectable signal. I would agree that the photon is simply an inferred cause of the resulting signal.Although the 'photomultiper effect' has always bothered me as its does not actually measure 'a photon'?
I wrote:I do not see the term 'event' affecting that which 'is'. Simply, the more precisely you wish to define an event, the more precisely you have to define what you mean by 'event'. The word 'event' is a tool and it is advisable to use a tool suitable for the job in hand.
In a way, I am hearing that you are saying that if I mistake a cup of coffee for a cup of tea, that my mistake makes the cup of coffee somehow change into a cup of tea. I do not see my mistake affecting that which 'is' coffee.To which you wrote:As is all language but as you scare-quote "is" we agree that this is also under definition. So I'm not sure that not understanding what 'events' 'are' would not affect that which is.
I have done this many times and the resulting taste is of neither, until I have worked out which it is. I do not think that it is the beverage that is unsure what it is. How do you propose that thinking about something can affect that something? I am not arguing against you here, I am just puzzled.
Thinking you have reached the floor while still several steps up is a more painful example.
Please can you put this another way? I think it logical that events are defined as a system changing state in some manner. Are you pointing towards a question like 'Are time and events things in themselves?' I do not see how it is possible to have an event free zone and an observer who has any sort of access to that zone. The observer will 'infect' any such space with 'time'.I think I agree with the 'length' of an event but I wonder where that leaves your 'time' if any event can be an eternity depending upon the measuring instrument?